Some Fiscal Aspects 

of 

Public Education in American Cities 



By 
Edward Charles Elliott, A.M. 



Submitted in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements 

for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy 

in the Faculty of Philosophy 

Columbia University 



1905 




'x^ 



j/ _ jm. 



LB 2829 

.E5 
Copy 1 



Some Fiscal Aspects 

of 

Public Education in American Cities 



By 
Edward Charles Elliott, A.M. 



Submitted in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements 

for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy 

in the Faculty of Philosophy 

Columbia University 



1905 










/V^' 



CONTENTS 



PAGE 

I. Introduction i 

Twofold aspect of present educational thought . i 

The scientific aspect of education i 

The economic aspect of education 2 

Organized education as a producer and con- 
sumer of social energy 3 

Public education and public taxation .... 5 

Summary • . 6 

Aim of present study 7 

II. Public Education and the American City . . 7 
Public education and the scope of modem muni- 
cipal needs and activities 7 

Increased importance of municipal fiscal prob- 
lems 8 

State control of municipal education .... 9 

Fiscal isolation of municipal education ... 10 

Unity of municipal life 11 

III. Basis and Method of Investigation .... 12 

Financial statistics of cities 12 

Method of statistical treatment 15 

TV. Character, Arrangement and Preliminary Ma- 
nipulation OF Data 16 

Data of expenditures for municipal maintenance 

and operation for 1900 and 1901 . . . . 16 
Percentile tables of expenditures No. i (1900) 

and No. 2 (1901) 18 

Transformation of gross itemized expenditures 

to a percentile basis 26 

Variability of Expenditures 26 

General statement 26 

Tables of frequency (Tables 4(a)-4(/t)) ... 27 

Explanation of tables of frequency 31 

Graphical representation of variability (Figs, i 

to 10) 32 

iii 



iv Contents 



PAGE 



VI. Measurement of Variability 35 

Method of probable error 35 

Table of probable errors (Table 4A) .... 36 

Method of deviation from central tendency . , 36 

Table of deviations (Table 5) 38 

Coefficient of variability 40 

Table of medians, average deviations, standard 
deviations, and coefficients of variability 

(Table 6) 40 

Relationships of variabilities 40 

VII, Causes of Variability 41 

Influence of population 42 

Influence of geographical location 44 

Influence of municipal environment .... 46 
Influence of the mode of classification of public 

accounts and of systems of accounting ... 46 

Influence of state subsidies for education ... 50 

Influence of distribution of functions .... 52 

Influence of economic wealth 53 

Influence of methods of revenue and expendi- 
ture administration 54 

Influence of municipal personality and ideals . 54 

Conclusion 55 

VIIL Relationships between Items of Expenditure 56 

Implications of the variability 56 

The Pearson coefficient of correlation .... 56 

Existing relationships (Table 10) 57 

Significance of relationships 58 

Graphical representation of relationships (Fig. 

11) 60 

IX. Variability and Correl.a.tion of Per Capita 

Expenditures 61 

Data 61 

Variability of per capita expenditures (Tables 

II and 12) 62 

Graphical representation of per capita varia- 
bility (Figs. 12 to 16) 65 

Pearson coefficients of per capita correlations 

(Table 13) 66 



Contents v 

PAGE 

X. Supplementary Study of the Variability and 

Correlation OF Municipal Expenditures 67 

Data of municipal expenditures for 1902 and 1903 67 

Selection of cities 71 

Preliminary arrangement of data 71 

Percentile table of average payments for general 

and municipal service expenses (Table 14) . 72 

XL Supplementary Study of the Variability and 
Correlation of Municipal Expenditures 

(continued) 75 

Tables of frequency (Table 15) 75 

Surfaces of frequency (Figs. 17 to 28) . . . . 77 
Measurement of variability; probable error . 81 
Table of probable errors (Table 16) .... 81 
Measurement of variability: deviation from 

central tendency 81 

Table of deviations (Table 17) 82 

Measurement of variability : coef!icient of varia- 
bility 83 

Table of medians, average deviations, stand- 
ard deviations, and coefficients of variability 

(Table 18) 83 

Causes of variability 84 

Relationships of variabilities: coefficient of 

correlation 84 

Table of Pearson coefficients of correlation 
(Table 19) • . . . 85 

XII. Relationships of-the Different Standards of 

Expenditures for Education .... 85 
Classification of cities on the basis of percentile 

school expenditures 85 

Tables of group relationships (Tables 20(a), 

20(6), 21) 86 

Classification of cities on the basis of per capita 

school expenditures 89 

Tables of g-roM/? relationships (Table 22) ... 89 

Fiscal standards for education 89 

Classification of cities on the basis of cost per 

pupil 90 



vi Contents 

VAGB 

Valuation of the different standards .... 90 

Relationship of the different standards ... 90 

Value of percentile standard 91 

Table of rankings (Table 23) 92 

Value of per capita standard 95 

Value of cost per pupil standard 96 

Ranking according to weighed values .... 98 

XIII. General Conclusions 98 

Bibliography 100 

Afterword 102 

Personal Statement 102 



Some Fiscal Aspects of Public 
Education in American Cities 



I. Introduction 

Twofold Aspect of Present Educational Thought. — There are 
at the present time two well-defined tendencies in our public 
educational thought and activity, which may be designated as 
the scientific and the economic. At the outset, it may be well to 
anticipate the possible obscureness or confusion arising from 
the use of these terms, possessing, as they do, meanings of both 
variable content and application. 

The Scientific Aspect of Education. — The so-called scientific 
spirit is as old as modem science, and its invasion of the field of 
educational activity has been as extended and as rapid as those 
sciences, fundamental and cognate to education, have developed 
to act as guides and leaders for the advance. 

This scientific aspect, as it concerns organized public educa- 
tion, is best defined by the man)'- and varied efforts of the day 
to evaluate the results of educational endeavor; to measure in 
terms of some standard unit the relation between effort and 
result; to give to education, in a degree at least, some of the 
exactitude and precision which have grown up within the 
physical, biological, and social sciences. It has, as it were, 
assumed three phases. On the one hand is the child; on the 
other, the teeming and multiplex super-organism of society; 
between, stands the school as an adapting institution. Each of 
these primary elements of the educational process has been, and 



2 Some Fiscal Aspects of Public Education 

is being, subjected to that searching inquiry, criticism and 
judgment characteristic of the scientific attitude, in order that 
there may be wrought into the structure of the organiza- 
tion, curricula, and aim of the school the established funda- 
mental principles of human development and social efficiency. 
Every concrete study and investigation of the ever-changing 
and developing physical, mental, moral, and social capacities of 
the child; every attempt to define and estimate the working 
efficiency of the practices of the school, by means of more 
adequate standards; every measurement of the results of the 
school in terms of those values established in the social medium; 
every critical interpretation of the educational method and 
organization — the number and frequency of these during re- 
cent years furnish ample evidence of the ceaseless and ever- 
spreading scientific activity that seeks a rational purpose 
beneath educational practices and ideals, which, too frequently 
in the past, have been grounded in tradition, prejudice, or 
social inertia.^ 

The Economic Aspect of Education. — The application of the 
word "economic" to education may appear to be of doubtful 
validity or propriety. The materialistic elements and biased 
political associations of the word seem to have prevented its in- 
trusion into the terminology of education ; yet there are ample 
reasons to warrant the belief that there is soon to be developed 
a definite field of knowledge to which may be applied, with 
aptness as well as precision, the term "economics of education." 

In a wide sense, the scientific aspect of education is inclusive 
of the economic aspect. Economics as a science, and in its 
broadest significance, comprehends the laws of the correlation 
and conservation of social energy. In this sense, all applica- 
tions of scientific method to each of the threefold phases of 
public education have a final economic aspect ; for every series of 

' The argument here is not at all concerned with the doubtful discus- 
sion as to the existence of a "science" of education. Any attempt to 
establish a completer individuality for educational knowledge is likely 
to end in specious contention. However, the application of scientific 
method to the problems of education is another and different matter. 
Through this means will the problems be carried toward a rational, logi- 
cal, and unbiased solution. Indeed, by it also, the problems themselves 
will become more clearly defined as the study of the appropriate phe- 
nomena progresses. 



Some Fiscal Aspects of Public Education 3 

observations upon the workings of the developing mental, bodily 
or moral organization of the learning child, every alteration of 
administrative system and every revision of curricula have as a 
goal the influencing and improvement of the conditions under 
which the educational process may take place with the least of 
retardation, and with a minimum of waste of effort or energy. 
This is necessarily true if such observations are conducted above 
the plane of mere scientific dilettanteism, and if suggested ad- 
ministrative and instructional changes are posited as results of 
rational inquiry. 

In its larger meaning, too, all education — especially all 
schemes for national public education, representing as they do 
the supreme conscious effort of peoples for the conservation and 
correlation of their social forces and for the perpetuation of 
their social traditions — has a definite economic significance. As 
the wealth, enlightenment, ideals and progressive character of 
peoples are determined in a large measure by their opportunities 
for education, so are their opportunities for education fixed 
by the material and ethical elements of their existence.^ 

Public Education as a Producer and Consumer of Social Energy. 
— As an instrumentality for the development of individual 
wholeness, for effecting the amalgamation and cohesion of di- 
verse racial and cultural elements into a national unity, and for 
directing social energy towards social progress, we of the United 
States have doubted but little the total productiveness of our 
plan of education. Our faith has been instinctive rather than 
rational, for we have always lacked any definite standards by 
means of which its individual or social results could be tested 
with any degree of accurac3^ 

Qualitatively, through the roughly and ill constructed sub- 
jective standards of public opinion, it has been assumed that 
every investment of public funds in public education yielded 
an immeasurable dividend in the form of an enlightened, moral, 
and efficient citizenship. 

Quantitatively, these dividends are almost impossible of 
measurement. Aside from the rather inadequate standards, 
established by statistical investigations of the illiteracy, crime, 

1 Seager, H. R., Introduction to Economics, pp. 233 ff., gives a short, 
yet definite, exposition of the reciprocal relation of education and economic 
condition. 



4 Some Fiscal Aspects of Public Education 

poverty, and earning capacity of our population, we have had 
no gauges with which to determine in any exact or satisfactory 
manner the amount of those elements of culture and worth, 
entering into individual and social values, which could be traced 
back to the influence of public education. This has been 
necessarily so, and there will perhaps always be a total absence 
of standard values in estimating the larger effectiveness of 
public education. For the forces generated and directed by 
organized education cannot be subjected to those modes of 
measurement applicable to physical forces which display a 
constancy and universality foreign to the activities of educa- 
tion, functioning as these latter do under the widely varying 
conditions of race and individual capacity, and of economic 
state and class ideals which arise in natural consequence of our 
democracy and freedom of competition. 

On the other hand, the recognition of this phase of the 
economic aspect of the educational process, as a problem, is the 
first condition for the application of a scientific method for its 
solution. As our knowledge of the mental and physical capaci- 
ties of individuals increases, and as our recognition of social 
necessities is expanded, we shall be enabled to accommodate 
and direct educational effort toward the largest, most economi- 
cal and efficient ends. 

Throughout whatever recognition and knowledge we have 
had in the past of the values derived from public education, and 
in most of the enthusiastic efforts to increase these values, the 
school has been viewed almost entirely as a producer ^ of social 
efficiency. While not entirely disregarded, the thought of 
public education as a consumer of social energy has not yet 
been developed in a manner likely to give a clear and accurate 
notion of its economic cost. The vast and increasing expendi- 
tures for the support of public education are, however, directing 
more and more the attention of publicists and those charged 
with the administration of the affairs of the public schools to 
the necessity of the possession of more reliable and accurate 
knowledge concerning the cost of this education we have 
established. 

> I recognize the objections to the use of this term prodticer. Its 
real meaning will, I think, be readily comprehended. Its use enables me 
to carry out what seems to be a valuable analogy from economic science. 



Some Fiscal Aspects of Public Education 5 

While the real cost of public education is, in some respects, 
as difficult of accurate measurement as are its results, there are 
certain objective phenomena by the measurement of which a 
more or less accurate statement of the consuming capacity of the 
public schools can be made. Even when limited to the amount 
of public money devoted to public education — and this by no 
means represents the total cost of such education^ — our present- 
day notions of the cost of education are of a crude and inac- 
curate kind. It might be said in all truth that we do not know 
how much we are paying for public education, in spite of the 
overwhelming mass of apparently reliable information and 
statistics. The commonplace of "millions spent" and "millions 
spending" has benumbed our economic sense, and that clown 
of statistics — the average — has been made to perform grotesque 
antics to please and win the applause of both the unthinking 
and those inspired with ulterior motives. 

Whenever doubt has arisen concerning the effective working 
of our educational plan, its shortcomings have been felt in an 
indefinite and vague manner. Not infrequently reforms are 
attempted through the transformation of the mode of legal 
and administrative control, or by means of remodelled cur- 
ricula. In the main, however, one or the other of two stand- 
ard remedies is generally proposed to-day to remove any 
recognized weaknesses of the plan and to provide for its rapidly 
expanding activities and functions: better prepared and more 
able teachers, and a more generous and adequate support. In 
our present social conditions the application of the first of these 
is recognized as being conditioned by the second. "More 
money" has become the banner word of those who, either 
through honesty of conviction or an unweening enthusiasm, 
hope to have realized within, and from, the public school those 
ideals and results consistent with its primary importance as a 
conservator of national efficiency .2 

Public Education and Public Taxation. — However well- 
grounded in our American polity the idea of public taxation for 

> See Giddings, F. H., The Legal Aspect of Compulsory Education, 
Proceedings, National Educational Association, 1905, for pertinent sugges- 
tions regarding the real social and economic cost of compulsory education. 

2 See Eliot, C. W., More Money for the Public Schools, for a virile and 
timely statement concerning this point. 



6 Some Fiscal Aspects of Public Education 

the support of public education has become, perhaps the present 
most fundamental condition of the growth and efficiency of this 
distinctly American institution is the question of the rational 
limitation of the amount of public money to be devoted to it. 
This question is assuming a wider public interest each year. 
Aside from the increased demands for support due to mere 
numerical growth, the extension of the recognized function of 
the public school, and the numerous well-directed efforts to 
improve its effectiveness through the provision of more ade- 
quate facilities, have served to increase many-fold the financial 
burdens necessary to the institution and success of the reforms. 
To say that the burden has been borne ungrudgingly by the 
people would be a mere commonplace. To assume that twice 
the burden could be borne might be presumptuous. 

The influence of persistent bodies of teachers,^ who have 
come to the realization of the idea that justice and adequacy of 
teachers' salaries and of school support will come only through 
justice and equality in taxation, and of certain definite studies 
and investigations 2 of the financial conditions surrounding 
the public schools in various parts of the country, has stimu- 
lated both professional and public activity regarding the prob- 
lem of the financial support of the public schools. 

Summary. — The dominating aspects of educational thought 
and activity to-day may be characterized as the scientific and 
the economic. Broadly speaking, the first of these is inclusive 
of the second. The economic aspect is becoming, however, 
more and more specialized and separable from the scientific. 

' The recent well-loiown campaign of the Chicago Teachers' Federa- 
tion is an example of such activity, perhaps the most unique in American 
educational history. 

2 Committee on Taxation as Related to Public Education. Appointed 
at the meeting of the National Educational Association, Minneapolis, 1902. 
{Proc. N. E. A., p. 312.) Final report submitted at meeting of National 
Educational Association, July, 1905 (86 pp.)- 

Committee on Salaries, Tenure, and Pensions of Public School Teachers 
in the United States. Appointed at the meeting of the National Educa- 
tional Association, Boston, 1903. {Proc. N. E. A., 1903, p. 308.) Pre- 
liminary report. {Proc. A^ E. A., 1904, pp. 370 ff.) Final report 
submitted at meeting of National Educational Association, July, 1905 
(458 pp.). 

Report of Committee on Taxation and Teachers' Salaries. Indiana 
State Teachers Association, 1904 (126 pp.). 



Some Fiscal Aspects of Public Education 7 

In the life of a people an organized system of public education 
may be viewed as a producer of social efficiency and as a con- 
sumer of social energy. The most important problem before 
American education to-day is that of adequate support. There 
it needed, however, fuller and better knowledge of the actual 
consuming capacity of public education before the present sup- 
port can be intelligently increased. 

Aim of the Present Study. — The form of all education, and of 
all public education in particular, is cast in a moiild of social 
ideals. In turn, it acts to shape new ideals of new generations. 
The influence and social value of these ideals cannot be readily 
subjected to a process of scientific measurement. On the other 
hand, it is possible to state in more or less exact terms some of 
those characteristics which mark contemporaneous public edu- 
cation as a consumer of social energy, valuing social energy in 
terms of the amount of public funds given over to the support 
of public education. 

It is toward this economic aspect of education that the 
following study will be devoted, particularly as concerns the 
fiscal position of public education in American cities. 

II. Public Education and the American City 1 

Public Education and the Scope of Modern Municipal Needs 
and Activities. — Undoubtedly, the most significant social phe- 
nomenon of the last half century has been the concentration 
of population in urban centres. ^ As a direct product of modern 
industrial development, the city has given rise to a multitude of 
new and unsolved social and political problems. Without un- 
due exaggeration it may be said that the social and political 
problems of the nation are becoming localized in those of the 
cities. Among these problems, not the least in far-reaching 
and fundamental importance is that of public education. How 

> The most satisfactory study we have upon this topic is Rollins, 
Frank, School Administration in Municipal Government, in Columbia 
University Contributions to Philosophy, Psychology, and Education, vol. 
xi.: see also Goodnow, F. J., City Governm.ent in the United States, Chap. 
XL, pp. 262-273. 

2 See Weber, A. F., The Growth of Cities in the Nineteenth Century, 
Columbia University Studies in History, Economics, and Public Law, vol. 
xi., for a comprehensive treatment of this subject. 



8 Some Fiscal Aspects of Public Education 

to organize and administer a scheme of public education which 
will provide an adequate training and instruction, both in kind 
and amount, for the children of the cities, has become, and is 
yearly becoming more so, a paramount social issue. 

Education, however, presents but one of the problems of 
modem municipal life. Not only are the children to be edu- 
cated; property and life must be protected against crime, fire, 
and disease ; an ample and uncontaminated water supply must 
be maintained; ease and safety of communication must be 
established; the needy, the unfortunate, and the dependent 
must be provided for ; a social responsibility for the cultural wel- 
fare of all individuals must be recognized; above all, has come the 
demand for a form of administrative control at once responsive 
to the public mind and likewise efficient and conscious of a 
personal responsibility. Thus there have developed, co-ordinate 
with education, the almost equally important requisites of 
municipal life — efficient administrative systems, police and 
fire departments, courts of justice, jails and workhouses, health 
and inspection departments, street, sewer, lighting and water 
departments, hospitals, parks, and gardens — the list might 
be expanded many-fold, so extended have become the needs 
and the scope of modem municipal life and activity. 

Increased Importance of Municipal Fiscal Problems. — For the 
satisfaction of its local needs the municipal corporation has been 
enabled' to utilize, with few exceptions ^ and with numerous re- 
strictions, ^ the right of local taxation conferred upon it by the 
state. The history of most American cities might be reflected 
in an account of their financial and taxing experience. Their 
life, prosperity, and intensive development have been bound up 
in the official wisdom and honesty employed in the use of their 
public funds. 

The corollary of the expansion of municipal life has been the 
remarkable increase in municipal revenues, expenditures, and 
debts, the latter to-day exceeding in magnitude those of the 
Federal Govemment.^ These revenues, in the main derived 

» For example, the prohibition against local taxation for public educa- 
tion as has existed in several southern states. 

2 Minimum and maximum tax levies, limitations in the taxation of 
corporate and franchise values, etc. 

3 Aggregate of interest and non-interest bearing debt of the United 



Some Fiscal Aspects of Public Education 9 

from direct taxation, have laid upon property as the chief sub- 
ject of taxation a burden which causes even the enthusiast to 
hesitate in his demands for the continued expansion and inten- 
sion of those social activities that are already, or that are thought 
fit to be, subject to public control and utilization. 

Committed as we are in this democracy to a system of public 
education supported almost entirely from local taxation, the 
solution of the educational problem, in its final analysis, has 
become largely a matter of adequate financial support. 

State Control of Municipal Education. — The American city 
has not developed independent of state legislation and govern- 
ment control.^ In fact, under the. influence of perverse political 
methods, on part of city and state alike, the American^city has 
been brought under state domination. "Local autonomy" has 
become a figure of speech in many respects. However, it is 
over education that the authority of the state has been exer- 
cised with increasing force. ^ In the financial, as well as the 
political history and development of cities in America, educa- 
tion has held a somewhat peculiar position. In American 
polity, education has always been considered as a social activity, 
the ultimate control and administration of which was properly 
a state function. This has been and necessarily needs to con- 
tinue to be a foundation principle of our educational scheme. 

Partly as a heritage of our early semi-ecclesiastical control of 
education, and partly as a result of an early untutored political 
experience in the direction of educational affairs, local educa- 
tional jurisdictions have grown up independent of the municipal 
jurisdictions, and frequently, when territorially coincident with 

States Government Dec. i, 1902 (Monthly Summary of Com,merce and 
Finance of the United States, Treasury Department, December, 1902, 
P- 843) $1,311,574,059. 

Total debt obligation of cities (160) in United States, above 25,000 
population, at close of fiscal year 1902 (Bulletin No. 20, 1905, United 

States Bureau of the Census) $1,312,268,324. 

Of the latter amoiuit $1,172,798,788 was in the form of municipal bonds. 

1 Goodnow, F. J., City Governm,ent in the United States. Chap. IV., 
The Position of the City in the United States, pp. 69-88; Chap. V., State 
Control of Cities. Also his Municipal Problems, Chap. II, pp. 27-32, 
63-89. 

» Webster, R. H., Recent Centralizing Tendencies in State Ediica- 
tional Administration, gives a very satisfactory exposition of the present 
conditions. 



lo Some Fiscal Aspects of Public Education 

the municipality, possess powers and authorities apart from the 
local civil administrative system. Thus the study of education, 
as a municipal activity, has been rendered extremely difficult. 
Especially complicated has become the fiscal aspect of educa- 
tion. In many states, boards of education in cities possess the 
power to levy and collect taxes, and to expend their funds wholly 
independent of the municipal authority. 

The most important element in this complication has been 
the system of state subsidies of local education, which has grown 
up coincident with the extension of the control of the state 
over all education within its borders. The state subsidy, con- 
structed as an instrument for the encouragement of the de- 
velopment of public education, and for the equalization of 
educational opportunity, serves in many respects to hide from 
our view the exact nature and extent of local adaptation and 
responsibility for support of public education. ^ 

Through a combination of the influences arising from the 
special character of education itself, through the frequently 
demonstrated necessity of removing educational control from 
the rule of partisan politics, and through the exercise of the 
control of the state through its subsidies, there has been in the 
cities of most of our states a tendency toward the isolation, 
either artificial, or real and legal, of education in the field of 
municipal activity. In general this isolation in the past has 
been a necessity for the development of public education amid 
the ofttimes antagonistic political, social, or religious forces. 

Fiscal Isolation of Municipal Education. — One of the chief 
supplementary results of this administrative isolation of public 
education in cities has been a sort of fiscal isolation. Statistics 
relative to the cost of education have been eagerly sought by 
those interested in this economic aspect of educational adminis- 
tration. Nowhere has any careful attempt been made to deter- 
mine the true fiscal position of education in our cities, by which 
is meant the relation which educational revenues and expen- 

> The complex systems for the support of public education in force in 
most of our states have rendered extremely difficult the obtaining of a 
correct notion regarding the relation between the state and local support. 
The statistics of the receipts of public schools of cities, compiled annually 
by the United States Commissioner of Education, wherein it is sought to 
differentiate state, county, and local receipts (Table VIII., pp. 1446-1458 
of the Report for 1903) are exceedingly inaccurate and misleading. 



Some Fiscal Aspects of Public Education ii 

dittires bear to those other revenues and expenditures deemed 
essential to the conditions of municipal life. The determination 
of these relationships appears to be a prerequisite to a more 
exact knowledge of educational finance itself, as well as to the 
extension of our present ideas relating to the social position 
and economic importance of the public school in the newer 
conditions of urban life. 

Unity of Municipal Life. — There is growing to-day, though, 
a new conception of the place and function of education within 
the organic life of the municipality. The central notion of this 
later concept is that of the unification of the various forces which 
go to make up the municipal life, and of the elimination of those 
forces tending to disintegrate the essential elements of the 
wholeness of the community life. This thought of unity 
is, as yet, in the nature of an ideal. Prevailing political 
methods, traditional prejudices, and social inertness must be 
overcome and a keen sense of civic obligation developed be- 
fore this unity can be realized. The doctrine which says 
that, "one of the chief dangers which menaces the security 
of our citizenship and the high purposes of the American state, 
in my judgment, is the mingling of municipal and educa- 
tional functions," i or that "while the state must accomplish its 
work for education largely through municipal agents, it must 
also prevent, so far as possible, any mixing of local politics with 
educational interests. To this end the development of education 
must he made as independent as possible of other departments of 
municipal government,"'^ must cease to be a working principle 
if our modem city life is to attain that efficiency demanded and 
desirable for real social progress. 

Education, although primarily of state concern, is none the 
less a municipal responsibility, the complete realization of which 
will come only when it has been assigned its proper place within 
the scope of the whole municipal life. 

> Draper, A. S., Function of the State Touching Education, in Ed. Rev., 
XV. (1898), p. 109. 

2 Rollins, Frank. Op. cit., p. 18. The italics are mine. In one sense 
the first statement of the quotation is true. It is difficult, however, to 
find justification from the arguments adduced for the general conclusions 
which Dr. Rollins reaches regarding the absolute supremacy of the state 
over municipal education. 



12 Some Fiscal Aspects of Public Education 

III. Basis and Method of Investigation 

At the commencement of this study, the two factors of most 
importance to be determined were the basis upon which, and 
the method by which, the investigation was to be conducted. 
The first would define the scope and variety of the data sub- 
jected to analysis, a matter of no small significance in this par- 
ticular case. Through the latter, it was desired to get beyond 
the unsatisfactory and limited conclusions attached to current 
observations of the financial aspect of municipal school ad- 
ministration. 

Financial Statistics of Cities. — As the initial aim was to ob- 
tain a view of public education in cities through the perspective 
of their total fiscal activity, the first requisite was to obtain the 
statistical data reflecting this activity. This was thought to 
be contained in the ordinary official municipal reports. 

Without much difficulty there were obtained the annual 
financial reports of 120 of the 156 towns and cities in the states 
of New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Ver- 
mont, New Hampshire, and Maine, possessing over 8000 popu- 
lation, according to the Census of 1900. This particular 
territory was selected because of its approximate homogeneous 
character, and because of the recognized custom of most of the 
towns and cities contained therein of issuing for distribution 
annual reports covering the scope of the various municipal 
activities. The promptness and courtesy of the various officials 
to whom the requests for information were sent are partial evi- 
dences of the high plane of official responsibility maintained in 
these cities. This was notably true in the case of the towns 
and cities of Massachusetts. 

A preliminary survey of the total number of reports dis- 
closed the superficial and unsatisfactory character, at least for 
the intended purpose, of the financial data contained in most of 
them. They varied in excellence from the complete detailed 
statements of the work and financial operations of each city de- 
partment, as for example those of Cambridge, Springfield, New- 
ton, Boston, Manchester, and Rochester, to a bare enumeration 
of the municipal expenditures, listing the warrants in the order 
in which they were paid by the city treasurer, together with the 
amount and name of the payee. The only common term of the 



Some Fiscal Aspects of Public Education 13 

reports seemed to be the effort to display official honesty in 
the handling of public moneys. 

Some two hundred hours were spent in a thorough examina- 
tion of twenty of the best and most complete of the reports. 
However, the variation in the completeness, and in the systems 
of classification, accounting, and reporting of municipal receipts 
and expenditures, presented very many obstacles to a satis- 
factory comparative study on the basis of the financial data con- 
tained in even these reports. 

Recourse was now had to the financial information con- 
cerning cities published in the bulletins of the United States 
Department of Labor.i This statistical data had been gath- 
ered in compliance with an act passed during the second ses- 
sion of the Fifty-fifth Congress, by which, "the Commissioner 
of Labor is authorized to compile and publish annually, as a 
part of the Bulletin of the Department of Labor, an abstract 
of the main features of the official statistics of the cities of the 
United States having over 30,000 population." 2 In the intro- 
duction to the first report issued under the provisions of this 
act, September, 1899, the then Commissioner of Labor, Carroll 
D. Wright, has given an insight into the difficulties attendant 
upon the gathering of the statistics published : 

The act of Congress . . . apparently contemplated a 
compilation of the official statistics of the various cities of 30,000 
population and over from data to be furnished to the Com- 
missioner of Labor by the cities themselves, such as, for in- 
stance, were included in their official annual reports, etc. Steps 
were taken, therefore, to obtain such reports from the officials 
of the various cities, and many reports were promptly received. 
In a number of instances, however, no reports were received, 
even though repeated efforts were made to secure them. In 
some cases the Department was informed that no printed reports 
were available, while in other cases no reply whatever was re- 
ceived in answer to its requests. An examination of the reports 
received showed that very few facts were reported uniformly 
by all of the cities, and that even the important financial state- 
ments were presented in so many different forms as to preclude 
such classification of the various items as seemed necessary for a 
satisfactory comparison. 

» No. 24, September, 1899; No. 30, September, 1900; No. 36, Sep- 
tember, 1901; No. 42, September, 1902. 

2 Bulletin No. 24, United States Department of Labor, September, 
1899, p. 625. 



14 Some Fiscal Aspects of Public Education 

It was believed that in order to be valuable for comparison 
and for other purposes the various items relating to the govern- 
mental, financial, and other conditions of these cities should be 
reported uniformly and accurately. Even had the Department 
been furnished with the reports for all of the cities within the 
limits of the investigation, the many difficulties encountered in 
a tentative effort with the reports already received led to the 
conclusion that uniformity and accuracy could be secured only 
by sending the special agents of the Department to the cities 
for the data desired. A schedule of inquiries was accordingly 
prepared and the work taken up by the agents of the Depart- 
ment at once. The utmost interest in the investigation was 
manifested in nearly every city by the officials who were visited, 
and they gave freely their time in compiling the data desired and 
in every way assisted the Department in the work. In many 
cases the methods of bookkeeping in vogue made a uniform 
classification of financial items, as called for by the schedules of 
the Department, very difficult and required much time and 
labor. 

Under the provisions of the above mentioned act, four annual 
bulletins of the statistics of cities were issued by the Depart- 
ment of Labor, the last one being distributed in September, 
1902, and containing the data for the year 1901. Upon the 
creation of the Department of Commerce and Labor as a cab- 
inet department in 1903, the work of gathering and publishing 
these municipal statistics was transferred to the permanent 
Bureau of the Census. 

The data presented in Bulletins 36 and 42 of the Department 
of Labor, issued in September of 1901 and 1902, respectively, 
have been made the basis of the first portion of this study. ^ 
The last two of the series of four biilletins were selected because 
of their evident superiority in completeness and accuracy over 
the first two. 

The reasons for selecting these data are as follows. First, 
aside from the incomplete and otherwise unsatisfactory statistics 
of a similar nature presented in the publications of the Tenth and 
Eleventh Censuses, they comprised the only source of either 
moderately complete or fairly reliable material such as it was 

1 This study was begun and completed before the data of the financial 
operations of cities for 1902 and 1903, published in Bulletin 20, Bureau 
of the Census (September, 1905), became available. The recent and more 
complete data gathered by the Bureau of the Census has been made the 
basis of the second portion of the study. See Sections X. and XI. 



Some Fiscal Aspects of Public Education 15 

necessary to employ in the present instance. The almost over- 
whelming obstacles and prohibitive expense preclude the gather- 
ing of data of this variety and scope through individual effort. 
Second, because they pertained to all of the cities of the indicated 
population class, an element altogether too frequently disre- 
garded, especially in comparative educational statistics. 

There is also a secondary reason for subjecting such data as 
these to a critical examination; for by such examination their 
value or uselessness for scientific purposes may be demonstrated. 
Municipal statistics, even when gathered through the agency of 
the Federal Government and with undoubted motive of making 
a valuable contribution to municipal and economic sciences, 
should be subjected to some process of interpretation beyond 
that of mere gross and doubtful comparisons, if the final and 
more valuable purpose is to be attained. 1 

Method of Statistical Treatment. — Apart from the details of 
treatment recorded in the following pages, it is desired to em- 
phasize here the two fundamental principles underlying the 
method pursued. 

The first is the principle of inclusion. That is, with the data 
for 1900 and 1901, all cities possessing 30,000 or more population 
have been included. 2 The immediate aim has been to present 
some of the fiscal aspects and relationships of education in the 
American city, regarded as a type. 

The second is the principle of relativity. In more than one 
way has public education become isolated as a social institution ; 
and this has been the more so with such of the features as are 
usually presented by financial statistics. The statistics of 
public school enrolment or attendance of any particular city, for 

> "No attempt has been made to interpret and compare the statistics 
here presented. In this respect the Bureau again follows the precedent 
of the Department of Labor. But it is believed that after the inquiry has 
been carried on for a longer period and the methods of collecting the 
statistics further perfected, the time will be ripe for a study of the data, 
which may lead to reliable and interesting comparisons and deductions." 
— (Bulletin 20, Bureau of the Census, 1905, p. 4.) 

2 This is not wholly true, inasmuch as three of the 135 cities were 
necessarily excluded from consideration, owing to partial or total absence 
of essential data. An adequate note of these exceptions appears in the 
proper place, see pp. 20 and 24 (Foot note (b)). No attempt has been 
made to select cities for study on the grounds of any presupposed or real, 
positive or negative, excellence, either educational or otherwise. 



1 6 Some Fiscal Aspects of Public Education 



instance, are not valuable in themselves as social statistics, 
unless there is known also the number of adiilts in the commun- 
ity and the number of pupils who do not attend school or who 
attend schools other than public schools. A statement of the 
salary standards of public school teachers in the different cities 
of the country has no particular meaning, unless accompanied 
by some notion of the standards maintained in other pro- 
fessional work and of the standards of living in the various 
commimities. Thus, too, with the data of educational ex- 
penditures as a whole. Our entire list of concepts regarding 
these factors has been formulated by viewing educational 
activity almost entirely apart from the other essential activities 
of modem municipal life. In view of the present development 
and increasing demands of public education in American cities, 
there is need for some scientific study of its cost in relation to 
that of other municipal functions. The use of the Pearson 
Coefficient of Correlation for stating these relationships as they 
have been found to exist may, by some, be thought to savor 
somewhat of over-refinement. In reply to this anticipated 
objection it may be said that it is owing to the lack of the 
application of the more refined statistical methods to the data 
of educational organization and practices that has rendered 
both useless and misleading much of the so-called statistical 
material. The use of such a factor as the Pearson Coefficient 
has been foimd to be of indispensable service in the realm of the 
biological and social sciences. Its definite application to the 
fiscal problem of education i may mark a step in advance and 
provide us with an efficient instrument for testing the validity 
or falsity of our present notions and standards. 

IV. Character, Arrangement, and Preliminary Manipu- 
lation OF Data 

Data of Expenditures for Municipal Maintenance and Oper- 
ation for igoo and igoi. — Tables XX. and XXII. of Bulletins 36 
and 42, respectively, of the United States Department of Labor 
contain the expenditures for maintenance and operation of the 

> The adequacy of the Pearson Coefficient in this respect has been 
admirably demonstrated by Dr. George D. Strayer in his recent study, 
"City School Expenditures," Teachers College Record, Vol. VI., pp. 107— 
209. 



Some Fiscal Aspects of Public Education 17 

governmental activities of the 135 ^ American cities possessing a 
population of 30,000 or over according to the Census of 1900. 
These expenditures are classified under the following headings : 
(i) police department; (2) police courts, jails, workhouses, re- 
formatories, etc.; (3) fire department; (4) health department; 
(5) hospitals, asylums, alm'shouses, and other charities; (6) 
schools; (7) libraries, art galleries, museums, etc.; (8) parks 
and gardens; (9) sewers; (10) municipal lighting; (11) street 
cleaning; (12) street sprinkling 2; (13) other street expendi- 
tures; (14) garbage removal; (15) interest on debt; (16) 
waterworks; (17) gas-works: (18) electric-light plants; (19) 
docks and wharves; (20) ferries and bridges; (21) markets; 
(22) cemeteries, (23) bath houses and bathing pools and 
beaches; (24) other items. Accompanying the tables are 
numerous notes in reference to peculiar characteristics or ar- 
rangements of the data for particular cities. 

Naturally, in view of the difference in size, location, and 
standards of municipal life of the various cities, the expendi- 
ture for each of the above items is not to be found for every 
city. It was not possible, for example, in many cities to separate 
the expenditures for the police department from those for 
police courts, jails, etc.; in some, jails and police courts are 
maintained at county or state expense. Many include ex- 
pense for garbage removal under health department, or possibly 
under streets; many keep no separate accounts for street 
cleaning, street sprinkling, sewers, etc., all of these items being 
included in a general item of street expenditures. However, a 
close examination of the tables revealed a sufficient degree of 
completeness in the items with which it was desired to work. 

For statistical purposes, and even for a clear insight into the 
financial operations of cities, the system of classification em- 
ployed in the arrangement of these data is open to serious ob- 
jection. This whole subject of accounting and classification of 
public revenues and expenditures, at least as far as such in- 
vestigations as this are concerned, is taken up at length and in 
greater detail in a later section.^ 

J Bulletin 42 contains 137 cities. The 135 cities common to both 
bulletins were selected in order to give data for two years for all cities 
considered. 

2 In Bulletin 36 items 11 and 12 are included as one item. 

■^ Section VII, p. 46 ff. 



Table 
Showing percentages of total amount expended for maintenance and operation 

All cities in the United States 



City. 



1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
62 
53 
54 
55 
56 
67 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
66 
66 
67 
68 



New York, N. Y.... 

Chicago, 111 

Philadelphia, Pa. . . . 

St. Louis, Mo 

Boston, Mass 

Baltimore, Md 

Cleveland, Ohio 

Buffalo, N. Y 

San Francisco, Cal . . 
Cincinnati, Ohio .... 

Pittsburg, Pa 

New Orleans, La.. . . 

Detroit, Mich 

Milwaukee, Wis 

Washington, D. C. . 

Newark, N. J 

Jersey City, N. J 

Louisville, Ky. . . . . . 

Minneapolis, Minn. . 
Providence, R. L. . . 
Indianapolis, Ind.. . 
Kansas City, Mo.. . . 

St. Paul, Minn 

Rochester, N. Y 

Denver, Col 

Toledo, Ohio 

Allegheny, Pa 

Columbus, Ohio 

Worcester, Mass 

Syracuse, N. Y 

New Haven, Conn... 

Paterson, N. J 

Fall River, Mass. . . . 

St. Joseph, Mo 

Omaha, Neb 

Los Angeles, Cal. . . . 

Memphis, Tenn 

Scranton, Pa 

Lowell, Mass 

Albany, N. Y 

Cambridge, Mass 

Portland, Ore 

Atlanta, Ga 

Grand Rapids, Mich. 

Dayton, Ohio 

Richmond, Va 

Nashville, Tenn 

Seattle, Wash 

Hartford, Conn 

Reading, Pa 

Wilmington, Del. . . . 

Camden, N. J 

Trenton, N. J 

Bridgeport, Conn. . . 

Lynn, Mass 

Oakland, Cal 

Lawrence, Mass 

New Bedford, Mass. 
Des Moines, Iowa.. . 
Springfield, Mass.. . . 
Somerville, Mass. . . . 

Troy, N. J 

Hoboken, N. J 

Evansville, Ind 

Manchester, N. H.. . 

Utica, N. Y 

Peoria, 111 

Charleston, S. C 



10.15 

19.30 

14.30 

17.80 
8.66 

11.20 
8.64 

13.10 

14.80 
9.88 
8.07 
5.60 

16.00 
9.32 

13.00 
8.65 
9.94 
9.77 
7.36 
9.56 
9.02 

11.90 
7.70 
6.54 
7.56 
6.96 
6.85 
7.05 
5.65 
7.57 

13.50 
9.99 
8.54 

12.60 
5.42 
9.67 

11.20 
8.05 

10.20 

11.40 
5.71 
4.94 

13.70 
7.94 
7.84 
8.38 

10.60 
5.84 
9.24 
9.38 

12.40 

13.40 

11.20 
8.27 
6.14 

12.80 
7.33 

11.00 
5.96 
5.12 
5.33 

11.60 

14.10 
9.15 
6.53 
6.28 
9.56 

12.70 



.791 
1.460 
2.640 
1.270 
6.660 
2.770 
1.910 

.406 
1.980 
1.840 

1.330 
.341 
.507 

6.790 

.234 

3.770 

.537 

.120 

.160 

1.160 

1.640 

.435 

.724 

1.870 

1.010 

.735 
.967 
.299 

1.250 
.739 
.719 

.519 

.461 

.305 

.968 
1.630 
.337 
.501 
.733 
.652 

.614 

.611 

.470 

1.070 

1.200 



.791 



.469 
.444 
.427 
.452 
.363 
2.440 



4.66 
8.30 
6.02 
8.01 
6.26 
6.84 
9.83 

11.00 
9.88 
8.13 
7.86 
6.24 

14.60 

11.40 
4.60 
5. 
6.28 
8.96 

11.20 
9.41 

10.10 

11.90 
8.25 
6.68 
8.35 
7.57 
6.67 
9.56 
6.36 
9.22 
9.78 

10.10 
7.57 

12.90 
8.11 
9.14 
9.41 
7.39 
8.69 
9.92 
4.17 
7.40 

10.60 

11.40 
8.65 
7.45 

10.20 
7.94 
9.06 
6.51 
5.71 

10.20 
9.81 
9.98 
7.18 

11.40 
6.68 
7.22 
9.71 
7.96 
6.39 
6.60 
9.96 

10.20 

13.00 

10.70 
9.81 
8.30 



o ^ 

X 



.924 

.878 

1.480 

1.420 

.824 

.995 

1.540 

.725 

1.660 

.677 

1.310 

1.190 

1.030 

.979 

1.350 

1.190 

.176 

.301 

.842 

.451 

.722 

1.960 

.377 

1.240 

1.520 

1.040 

.763 

1.290 

1.110 

.817 

.538 

.584 

.933 

1.680 

.539 

.914 

7.460 

.709 

2.34 

.929 

.922 

.320 

10.60 

1.260 

.584 

.743 

2.220 

.934 

.916 

.505 

1.200 

.476 

.716 

.921 

.857 

1.430 

4.950 

.769 

1.900 

.498 

.933 

1.340 

.705 

.499 

1.290 

1.200 

1.140 

2.000 



4.66 

.04 

2.49 

6.14 

6.16 

4.07 

2.73 

2.60 

3.82 

3.45 

2.25 

1.18 

2.09 

.36 

7.60 

4,25 

.73 

2.23 

3.03 

1.06 

2.42 

.16 

1.00 

3.15 

1.87 

(a) 

3.55 

.66 

5.56 

6.86 

5.25 

6.22 

8.22 

.41 

.30 

.29 

3.65 

9.27 
4.81 
4.89 

.37 
4.83 
2.12 
1.39 
3.24 
2.55 

.38 
6.64 

.13 
1.35 
2.29 
8.07 
7.79 

.30 
7.83 
6.66 

.34 

4.39 

3.13 

10.60 

2.36 

.17 
3.33 
2.57 

11.50 



14.9 
31.8 
17.1 
16.8 
16.4 
16.4 
23.7 
19.1 
20.9 
17.3 
13.5 
10.4 
23.9 
21.1 
21.7 
18.3 
11.0 
17.9 
25.6 
17.9 
33.2 
26.5 
19.0 
16.1 
37.2 
25.9 
17.3 
22.6 
21.2 
21.8 
26.6 
26.2 
18.1 
28.4 
25.6 
32.7 
15.9 
48.6 
24.7 
22.6 
21.4 
22.9 
14.5 
28.1 
32.7 
10.6 
20.7 
18.9 
24.2 
28.2 
25.9 
24.7 
21.1 
23.4 
18.4 
37.6 
21.2 
20.2 
40.7 
26.7 
25.0 
18.7 
24.0 
31.9 
18.7 
24.3 
31.4 
12.3 






'►J 



.555 
.894 

1.33 
.453 

1.61 
.034 

1.65 

1.65 
.754 

1.13 

1.03 
.173 

1.79 

1.60 
.140 
.713 
.763 

1.43 
.331 
2.82 
. 963 
.615 
.077 
1.27 

.732 
1.15 

.522 
1.58 
1.93 
1.13 
1.56 
1.01 
1.22 
1.29 
1..39 

.698 
1.42 
1.05 
.416 
.700 

.481 
.694 
1.02 
.411 
.310 
1.06 
.827 
.528 
1.04 
.132 
.573 
1.73 
1.77 
1.82 
1.48 
1.42 
1.14 
2.40 
1.22 

1.05 

.8.39 
1.04 

1.82 
.081 



1.72 
3.30 
2.63 
1.29 
2.50 
3.29 

.786 
3.21 
2.66 

.611 
2.88 

.206 
2.89 
1.86 
1.16 

.0937 

.142 
1.70 
2.51 
1.19 
4.48 
2.39 
2.40 

.787 
3.64 
1.17 
1.37 

.535 
1.04 
1.91 
1.41 
2.44 

.186 
1.14 
1.29 
4.08 

.229 

.641 

.959 
2.56 

.928 

.807 
1.38 
2.16 

.245 
3.02 

.501 

1 83 

1.77 

2.02 
.159 

1.57 

2.68 
.511 
*1.33 
.716 

1.89 

2.10 

1.98 
.934 
.269 
.588 
.196 
. 866 
.437 

1.95 

1.05 



.648 

2.00 
.432 

1.12 

1.88 
.418 
.694 
.197 
.824 
.690 

1.11 

1.41 
1.40 
1.39 
1.27 

.448 
.497 

1.26 

1.74 

4.77 
.424 
.714 
.0997 
.831 
.872 
.754 
.658 
11.5 

.798 
.954 

.825 
1.93 
.306 

1.03 

1.16 
.124 

4.30 
.366 
.586 
.739 
.258 
.152 
.124 
.305 
.591 

4.67 
.526 
.136 
.942 
.863 
.888 
.673 
.953 
.788 

1.99 
.409 
.839 
.466 
.743 
.404 
.59 
.706 
.942 

1.53 



2.45 
2.19 
6.75 
6.72 
3.77 
5.22 
5.15 
5.79 
3.94 
5.56 
4.75 
5.14 

6.25 
4.62 
4.37 
3.99 
4.87 
5.12 
8.04 
6.73 
4.06 
8.06 
7.87 
5.88 
5.14 

3.53 
4.61 
5.90 
5.46 
6.41 
6.01 

5.32 
3.27 
5.17 
6.37 
6.66 
5.12 
3.25 
4.32 
7.09 

5.19 
2.58 
5.63 
1.94 
4.31 
9.08 
7.06 
9.58 
2.65 
7.51 
3.94 
8.62 
4.07 
4.93 
6.85 
4.89 
4.76 
7.67 
3.30 
6.77 
8.96 
9.53 
7.21 
4.90 



(a) Less than .01. 



'■ Percentages obtained from data published in Bulletin 36 of 
i8 



No. 1 

devoted to each of the municipal departments for the fiscal year igoo 
above jo,ooo population 















4^ 


« 


o 












a 


o 


'crt 


jj 






rt 


> 


bo 












M 


p. 


> 
O 

a 








"p. 


i 


•d 
.P 












"•a 


u3 m 


2 


o 


1 
o 


1 
o 


tl) 
•c 

+^ 
o 

s 


'0 


■ c 

OS 


m 












o 


1 




1 


o 


1 

o 
Q 


01 

pin 


1 


B 




u 

o 




4.10 


1.84 


1.04 


13.12 


3.22 






.656 


.360 


.067 




.048 


33.69 


1 


3.02 


1.50 


2.25 


6.73 


6.36 




1.54 


.101 


1.030 


.017 




.054 


7.27 


2 


1.63 


3.59 


2.96 


10.90 


7.79 






.024 


5.210 


.023 




.495 


19.40 


3 


3.32 


3.57 


2.15 


8.66 


6.70 






.660 


.379 


.073 






14.50 


4 


2.67 


7.32 


3.16 


11.10 


6.47 








2.040 


.142 


.332 


.572 


12.40 


5 


2.67 


2.19 


2.22 


20.10 


3.62 






.056 


.286 


.069 




.054 


19.50 


6 


1.20 


1.99 


1.50 


14.40 


5.89 








2.250 


.450 


.648 




15.10 


7 


2.98 


4.02 


1.86 


10.90 


5.86 






.756 


.179 


.230 


.001 


.01 


15.40 


8 


2.70 


3.13 




.25 










.096 








32.50 


9 


3.29 


1.68 


.42 


28.90 


7.85 






.080 


.445 


.221 






7.83 


10 


2.47 


4.25 


1.40 


12.40 


4.65 






.382 


.757 


.288 






30.80 


11 


2.94 


.26 


2.49 


14.70 


















48.20 


12 


4.69 


11.50 


1.79 


8.64 


3.60 




3.34 




.589 


.070 






1.71 


13 


5.16 


3.80 


4.80 


9.22 


4.46 






.078 


1.720 






.325 


15.80 


14 


3.48 


6.42 


1.14 


8.43 


3.32 








.651 


.134 




.020 


14.10 


15 


2.54 




1.38 


8.37 


6.96 










.415 




.121 


35.70 


16 


1.47 


2.99 




23.20 


8.96 






.073 










30.70 


17 


3.60 


5.59 




17.60 


4.91 






.279 










17.90 


18 


5.90 


2.03 




12.90 


3.74 








.365 








16.30 


19 


1.73 


5.57 


.698 


20.50 


2.64 








.636 




.626 




17.90 


20 


5.36 


1.54 


2.53 


7.72 


.18 








.301 


.632 






11.80 


21 


4.41 


1.15 


.94 


12.00 


8.48 








.238 


.088 






11.50 


22 


4.34 


3.36 


.88 


22.50 


3.47 








2.730 








12.80 


23 


3.10 


1.89 


2.69 


21.80 


2.58 








.595 




1.120 




24.20 


24 


4.18 


.952 


.52 


7.60 










.017 


.382 






17.40 


25 


2.53 


4.79 


.81 


21.10 


4.81 


1.24 






1.380 


.513 


.626 




11.30 


26 


2.73 


5.53 


1.59 


14.00 


12.50 




4.21 


.170 




.321 






20.70 


27 


3.96 


.82 


.81 


21.10 


6.91 




.020 






.451 






18.50 


28 


2.90 


8.72 


.70 


14.90 


2.56 














.020 


11.50 


29 


5.01 


3.66 


4.05 


15.20 


5.52 








1.610 


.275 


.077 


.283 


8.63 


30 


6.45 


3.89 


.39 


10.50 










.772 








12.40 


31 


4.60 


5.09 


2.78 


12.30 


















12.50 


32 


2.54 


7.17 


2.01 


8.29 


9.66 












1.380 




18.30 


33 


2.46 


4.81 




15.80 






5.58 




.206 








10.70 


34 


1.62 


2.52 




20.20 












.148 






24.90 


35 


6.49 


5.91 


.82 


4.89 


















19.40 


36 


3.06 


10.33 




18.60 








.756 


2.350 


.668 






10.60 


37 


1.85 


2.06 


.43 


8.06 










.694 








12.30 


38 


2.35 


2.21 


1.41 


13.70 


6.38 












.709 




8.09 


39 


2.49 


2.27 


.03 


16.60 


9.23 








.377 


.118 






10.70 


40 


2.79 


7.06 


2.49 


14.70 


3.37 








2.360 




.826 


.061 


19.90 


41 


3.18 


1.00 


.36 


27.00 


3.66 
















23.00 


42 




4.20 




14.50 


5.87 








.145 




.837 




11.00 


43 


3.69 


.68 


.44 


7.50 


8.93 




2.22 




.154 


.373 


1.950 




18.70 


44 


2.31 


2.61 


2.05 


19.80 


4.46 








1.580 


.669 






7.02 


45 


2.81 


3.36 


1.62 


30.90 


3.14 


11.90 






.292 


.497 


.717 




7.60 


46 


1.62 


6.81 


3.74 


20.60 


6.82 










.343 






7.17 


47 


.854 


2.05 


.06 


20.30 


7.14 






.181 


.035 








30.60 


48 


4.72 


13.6 


1.87 


13.10 


4.59 








.835 




.422 


.181 


2.61 


49 


2.26 


3.84 


2.83 


8.37 


8.32 










.157 






13.50 


50 


2.35 


3.34 


4.18 


13.50 


9.27 














.038 


10.70 


51 


1.57 


3.77 


1.09 


16.70 


9.49 
















6.54 


52 


2.43 


2.11 


1.46 


20.10 


7.46 
















15.10 


53 


3.48 


6.19 


3.28 


9.12 










.575 








13.00 


54 


1.55 


6.21 


2.61 


15.40 


4.68 












2.190 




19.60 


55 


6.94 


2.64 




3.39 








.429 










9.44 


56 


2.38 


5.48 


1.37 


13.00 


7.22 








.371 




1.300 




13.60 


57 


1.10 


5.51 


2.24 


16.90 


4.45 






.624 


.168 




2.89 


.071 


11.90 


58 


2.24 


1.46 




4.59 










1.950 




1.24 


.151 


16.90 


59 


3.43 


3.32 


1.80 


11.10 


3.94 
















22.20 


GO 


1.62 


6.09 


1.89 


6.29 


5.73 








.039 








31.20 


61 


9.86 


.63 


4.55 


7.92 


8.65 






.013 


.041 


.040 


.096 




10.40 


62 


1.61 


.25 


.48 


8.49 


21.10 












.475 


.203 


] . f M t 


63 


1.64 


1.32 


.62 


18.60 


7.14 






.111 


.077 


.311 






11.40 


64 


2.15 


12.20 


2.68 


13.10 


3.88 












1.980 




9 . 50 


65 


4.00 


1.72 


1.73 


3.15 










.328 






.065 


29.10 


66 


2.62 


3.53 
5.15 


.12 

3.84 


8.89 
25.4 








.021 


1.440 


.056 






17.20 
IC SO 


67 
68 



the Department of Labor, September, 1901. 



19 



Table 
Showing percentages of total amount expended for maintenance and operation 

All cities in the United States 



City. 



69 

70 

71 

72 

73 

74 

75 

76 

77 

78 

79 

80 

81 

82 

83 

84 

85 

86 

87 

88 

89 

90 

91 

92 

93 

94 

95 

96 

97 

98 

99 

100 

101 

102 

103 

104 

105 

106 

107 

108 

109 

110 

111 

112 

113 

114 

115 

116 

117 

118 

119 

120 

121 

122 

123 

124 

125 

126 

127 

128 

129 

130 

131 

132 

133 

134 

135 



Savannah, Ga. (6) . . 
Salt Lake City, Utah 
San Antonio, Tex. . . 

Dnluth, Minn 

Erie, Pa 

EH^.abeth, N. J 

Wilkesbarre, Pa 

Kansas City, Kas — 

Harrisburg, Pa 

Portland, Me 

Yonkers, N. Y 

Norfolk, Va 

Waterbury, Conn.. . 

Holyoke, Mass 

Fort Wayne, Ind — 
Youngstown, Ohio . . 

Houston, Te.K 

Covington, Ky 

Akron, Ohio 

Dallas, Tex 

Saginaw, Mich 

Lancaster, Pa 

Lincoln, Neb 

Brockton, Mass 

Binghamton, N. Y... 

Augusta, Ga 

Pawtucket, R. I 

Altoona, Pa 

Wheeling, W. Va. . . . 

Mobile, Ala. (6) 

Birmingham, Ala 

Little Rock, Ark 

Springfield, Ohio .... 
Galveston, Tex. (6).. 

Tacoma, Wash 

Haverhill, Mass 

Spokane, Wash 

Terra Haute, Ind. . . 

Dubuque, Iowa 

Quincy, 111 

South Bend, Ind.. . . 

Salem, Mass 

Johnstown, Pa 

Elmira, N. Y 

AUentown, Pa 

Davenport, Iowa 

McKeesport, Pa 

Springfield, 111 

Chelsea. Mass 

Chester, Pa 

York, Pa 

Maiden, Mass 

Topeka, Kansas. . . . 

Newton, Mass 

Sioux City, Iowa. ... 

Bavonne, N. J 

Kno.tville, Tenn 

Schenectady, N. Y. . 

Fitchburg, Mass 

Sviperior, Wis 

Rockiord, 111 

Taunton, Mass 

Canton, Ohio 

Butte, Mont 

Montgomery, Ala. . . 

Auburn, N. Y 

Chattanooga, Tenn.. 



4.81 
8.82 
3.38 
7.09 
8.63 
9.49 
7.93 
7.37 
5.51 
9.41 
7.42 
8.79 
6.34 
8.24 

11.40 
8.91 
7.54 
7.49 
7.99 
6.84 
7.42 
3.74 
5.96 
7.83 

12.40 
6.79 
6.68 
6.88 

12.20 

13.10 

6.25 

2.79 
5.41 
6.55 
8.33 
7.94 
7.87 
7.67 
6.22 
8.54 
8.86 
4.49 
7.48 
8.59 
9.28 
7.33 
9.55 
9.84 
5.23 



9.15 

10.40 

6.57 

4.37 

5.37 

8.14 

6.46 

11.60 

9.98 

5.09 

10.60 



.609 

1.470 
.661 
.131 

1.230 
.741 



1.040 
.124 

1.130 
.512 

.996 

.149 

.831 

1.100 

.757 

.614 

.480 
.899 
.006 
.336 
1.200 

3.870 

1.230 

.245 

.716 
1.250 

3.290 

.288 



.929 



.615 

.451 
.078 

.735 

.509 
.572 
.187 

1.560 



6 u 
_2 0) 



- 3 
_m O 

■a a 



5.18 
7.45 
9.43 

11.80 
3.97 

10.30 
6.71 
5.35 
6.81 
3.04 
6.07 
7.66 
9.17 

13.90 
8.85 

10.00 
7.67 

13.20 
7.67 
6.77 
6.85 
7.75 
8.22 
6.32 

12.30 
5.40 
7.79 
8.56 

9.45 

13.90 

6.38 

4.34 

8.52 

11.50 

10.80 

8.65 

10.40 

10.60 

5.43 

4.90 

14.90 

9.37 

7.36 

10.10 

12.20 

7.03 

5.19 

7.61 

5.39 

8.27 

5.38 

6.38 

2.00 

9.77 

6.36 

5.56 

7.25 

8.64 

5.48 

8.28 

12.40 

7.21 

5.99 

11.20 



.722 

1.220 

.596 

1.290 

.055 

.871 

5.820 

.809 

.269 

1.890 

2.590 

.714 

.599 

.909 

1.840 

3.390 

1.890 

.789 

.072 

.682 

.977 

1.010 

1.820 

1.680 

.790 
1.240 

2.370 

2.610 

.495 

.260 

.580 

1.310 

.975 

.448 

1.380 

.308 

2.950 

.481 

1.620 

.747 

2.030 

1.380 

.555 

2.210 

.905 

.412 

2.580 

2.570 

1.810 

1.030 

.626 

.615 

1.820 

1.070 

1.390 

.645 

.737 

.874 

3.090 

2.460 

.858 

4.390 



TO OJ 

il 



.86 
2.11 
1.16 

.01 
3.16 



.06 
4.81 

.52 
1.98 

6.24 

2.32 

4.07 
4.04 
3.63 
3.86 

.03 
6.85 
2.40 
6.14 
2.62 



1.20 
3.06 
5.71 



6.55 
1.32 
2.13 



7.57 
3.14 



10.60 

.17 
6.35 

3.01 

.52 
2.21 
2^37 
6.99 
.66 
.40 
6.51 
1.18 

.55 
4.60 
2.15 



30.5 
22.1 
21.2 
32.2 
20.7 
39.7 
27.7 
33.8 
17.2 
23.5 
6.8 
39.5 
27.2 
28.7 
35.7 
17.9 
19.8 
30.4 
17.6 
35.1 
33.0 
34.9 
20.3 
37.1 
17.6 
17.7 
34.1 
25.1 

13.7 
.34.1 
28.5 

10.9 
21 3 
20!9 
35.8 
28.8 
26.9 
32.3 
20.0 
45.6 
22.6 
36.9 
39.6 
30.8 
29.5 
25.5 
34.6 
36.3 
21.9 
35.8 
16.1 
27.2 
22.8 
18.2 
24.5 
21.7 
23.1 
34.9 
23.5 
31.7 
38.6 
7.41 
23.9 
15.0 



.864 



.677 
2.00 



.347 

.623 
.441 
.197 
.236 
.428 
1.40 
.392 



.678 

.236 

1.03 
1.69 
.368 

.993 

1.19 



1.15 

.356 
2.31 

.380 
1.75 

1.75 
1.08 
1.19 

.328 



1.02 



1.53 
1.30 
1.37 
.571 

.822 

.612 
1.78 

.572 
1.84 
1.54 

.345 
2.37 

.581 
.05 



.904 
2.18 
1.51 

.824 

1.41 
4.48 
.232 
.881 
2.22 
1.34 
.236 
.963 
2.81 
1.19 
.443 

.835 
.602 
.136 

.023 

.933 

.111 



.440 

2.56 

.629 
1.24 
.484 
.545 
.362 
1.47 
1.75 
.979 

1.25 

1.78 

.929 
.275 
1.77 

.187 
1.23 
1.89 
.438 
.33 



.169 
.584 

.249 
.249 
.691 



1.52 



.165 
.005 
.67 

.648 

2.21 

1.93 
.116 

1.01 
.502 

1.91 

1.18 
.351 
.661 
.584 
.414 
.776 
.349 
.035 
.296 
.361 

1.14 

1.42 

1.01 
1.46 
.207 
.626 

.058 
.784 
.952 

.797 
1.13 
.219 
.402 
1.33 
.461 
.866 
.696 
.979 
.778 

.361 
.355 
.577 
.472 
3.89 

1.42 

.345 
4.57 
1.53 
.037 

1.48 
1.18 
.594 
.476 
.725 
1.89 
.275 

.351 
.536 



3.77 
1.15 
2.40 
8.28 
4.31 

10.50 
6.25 
7.87 
3.99 
7.11 
2.76 
5.18 
4.02 
7.32 
6.65 
2.05 
3.10 
7.99 
4.95 
5.91 

11.20 
4.82 
4.03 

11.20 
5.45 
4.51 
6.31 



5.09 
8.65 



6.00 
1.72 
6.39 
6.79 
7.36 
6.48 
6.50 
8.43 
9.49 
8.08 
6.76 
5.72 
6.56 
5.92 
8.86 

11.90 
4.63 
.04 
4.45 
4.36 
6.84 
9.52 
7.12 
6.05 
1.94 
7.68 
1.83 
6.98 
4.37 
4.90 
8.14 

10.3 



(6) No data for school expenditures. 



' Percentages obtained from data published in Bulletin 36 of 
20 



No. 1 {Continued) 

devoted to each of the municipal departments for the fiscal year igoo ' 

above jo,ooo population 



•d 


■d 










M 
















c 


^ 










a 


a) 


o 












C3 
C 

"•a 
11 


(D 

ft 

X 

o 

(D 

o 


> 
o 

e 

0) 

u 
o 


C 
O 


ID 
1 


1 

O 


CS 

■p. 

•a 

'u 
o 


> 

i 

-d 

a 

1 
o 
P 


."2 

-d 
c 
a 

1 


1 


1 
Si 
a 

6 

m 


1 
pq 


6 






























69 


5.78 


1.48 


1.19 


21.60 


6.25 












1.12 




14.10 


70 


4.05 


8.38 


2.37 


21.10 












.352 






18.80 


71 


.78 


2.48 




27.90 


2.93 


2.56 




.99 




.015 






19.50 


72 


1.14 


3.34 
4.02 
6.99 


1.12 


8.69 

22.70 

7.03 


11.60 






.215 


2.280 




.532 




10.60 
30.00 
11.20 


73 

74 

75 


2.46 


2.31 




24.10 










1.490 




.029 




11.90 


76 


1.23 


5.08 




14.90 


7.51 








3.560 








12.20 


77 


1.68 


6.21 


.47 


14.20 














2.57 




33.90 


78 


3.45 


3.26 


3.21 


19.20 


5.74 








.058 






.329 


15.10 


79 


4.20 


2.43 




30.30 


6.05 










.098 


.922 




24.90 


80 


2.01 


2.24 


1.65 


12.60 


4.56 
















12.20 


81 


2.43 


2.13 


2.69 


14.80 


4.94 








.831 






.058 


16.20 


82 


2.51 


2.87 


1.88 


10.00 


8.15 








.328 








10.20 


83 


5.58 


.33 




9.87 


5.29 








.097 








10.00 


84 


.58 


11.50 


2.89 


25.70 










.065 


.997 


.011 




15.10 


85 




6.33 


.93 


18.80 


6.50 










.073 






21.10 


86 




7.76 




6.92 










.590 








18.00 


87 


2.65 


4.95 


.09 


21.60 


6.61 
















20.50 


88 


1.89 


2.81 


.06 


15.10 


7.65 








1.460 




.591 




10.50 


89 


2.41 


4.52 


.72 


11.20 


10.60 
















10.90 


90 


2.26 


2.39 




23.80 


7.03 












1.39 




8.03 


91 


2.55 


18.7 


1.74 


13.90 


2.47 












.421 




10.70 


92 


3.08 


5.60 


.09 


6.15 


7.79 
















9.01 


93 


.82 


1.14 


1.02 


22.30 


3.56 








.277 




1.58 




11.90 


94 


1.61 


4.60 


.52 


25.00 


19.50 












.701 




8.56 


95 


1.85 


4.34 




14.40 


7.66 








.524 


.324 






14.60 


96 


1.41 


2.21 


1.77 


6.24 


10.40 


19.0 


4.95 


.148 


.105 


.414 


.218 




8.41 


97 
98 




5.51 


2.76 


24.26 












.264 


.591 




18.40 


99 




2.98 




3.06 






4.31 












22.20 


100 




12.50 


.64 


12.90 


5.91 








1.700 


.297 


.081 




3.96 


101 
102 




3.06 




65.70 


2.69 




5.10 


.116 










3.24 


103 


4.41 


6.29 


1.45 


13.50 


3.72 








.291 




.066 




17.10 


104 


2.05 


5.14 




24.80 


2.39 








.671 








19.90 


105 


3.78 


1.95 


1.45 


5.77 














1.42 




17.20 


106 


3.67 


4.48 


.63 


19.40 


4.23 






.045 




.212 






13.20 


107 


1.44 


4.31 


.81 


20.90 












.048 


.341 




11.30 


108 


3.24 


2.25 




13.90 


9.31 








.072 




.661 




9.56 


109 


1.64 


6.95 


.47 


8.90 


5.47 








.315 


.083 


1.03 




23.50 


110 


3.94 


2.92 




10.80 


















13.10 


111 


.55 


7.38 


.06 


9.11 










1.22 




1.58 




17.00 


112 


.36 


5.31 


.86 


11.90 


14.2 
















7.67 


113 


4.73 


2.55 


.85 


4.74 








.074 


1.58 








16.80 


114 


2.84 


2.92 




7.51 


9.56 
















20.20 


115 


3.18 


2.38 




15.20 


5.59 












2.47 




9.73 


116 


2.72 


6.08 


1.94 


14.60 


3.84 
















10.40 


117 


.39 


7.20 
4.52 


.79 
3.12 


14.10 
5.92 












.085 






12.90 
19.90 


118 
119 


1.86 


10.9 


1.63 


8.12 


5.31 








.078 




1.36 




20.60 


120 


2.11 


6.76 




14.20 






3.32 




.412 








16.70 


121 


3.10 


9.95 


.82 


22.00 


1.74 












.019 




19.90 


122 


1.45 


5.01 


1.53 


22.00 


5.36 








2.410 




.057 




15.20 


123 


1.19 


1.61 
10.8 


1.06 


16.90 
28.40 


2.54 
















35.30 
11.40 


124 
125 


6.42 


6.01 


.24 


16.10 


12.30 








.475 








2.92 


126 


2.43 


7.55 


.51 


14.80 


7.16 












1.41 




14.70 


127 


3.68 


1.06 




19.40 








.078 










35.40 


128 


2.84 


9.15 


.57 


8.98 


10.60 








.114 








7.07 


129 


1.76 


6.95 
8.31 


.22 


15.10 
13.80 


4.89 
7.41 




5.66 






.169 


.523 




16.10 
11.91 


130 
131 


8.15 


2.05 


.57 


7.89 


















7.11 


132 




4.77 


1.82 


26.20 


14.10 










.365 


.717 




19.50 


133 


1.66 


3.53 


1.12 


6.61 


6.44 








.972 




.168 




30.00 


134 


1.41 


2.94 


1.74 


17.90 










.087 








20.10 


135 



the Department of Labor, September, 1901. 



Table 
Showing percentages of total amount expended for maintenance and operation 

All cities in the United States 





City. 


1 

6 

P. 


.2 

u 


a 

e 


4-> 

a 

u 

<a 

o. 






Si 

.2E 


a 

■d 
u 
ni 

•a 




to 


bi 
c 
'a 

(8 






-s 


o 




•a 


tS 


« 


c 




a 


"o 








So 




la 


O <J 


o 
o 


2- 






'S 

3 


0) 






a, 


Ck 


s 


X 


X 


w 


1-! 


Pk 


IZI 


s 


w 


1 


New York, N. Y 


9.90 


1.27 


4.60 


1.13 


4.61 


19.17 


.71 


1 33 


.41 


2.65 


2.82 


'> 


Chicago, 111 


16.55 
15.88 


1.11 
6.48 


7.40 
5.76 


.85 
1.31 


.06 
3.69 


36.85 
17.37 


.94 
1.34 


3.41 
2.35 


1.27 
1.43 


2.13 
6.46 


2.22 


3 


Philadelphia, Pa 


1.67 


4 


St. Louis, Mo 


18.38 


1.33 


8.82 


1.77 


7.57 


17.51 


.42 


1.32 


1.12 


6.72 


1.50 


5 


Boston, Mass 


8.01 


5.16 


5.87 


.92 


5.51 


13.07 


1.22 


1.91 


1.80 


3.60 


1.61 


tt 


Baltimore, Md 


12.71 


1.61 


6.69 


1.24 


4.07 


18.61 


.54 


2.73 


.53 


4.30 


2.73 


/ 


Cleveland, Ohio 


8.69 


2.42 


10.15 


2.06 


2.99 


26.17 


1.72 


1.62 


1.04 


5.39 


1.30 


« 


Buffalo, N. Y 


13.52 


.41 


11.75 


.81 


2.31 


19.81 


1.68 


3 41 


.19 


5.99 


2.45 


9 


San Francisco, Cal. . . 


13.39 


2.75 


11.17 


1.14 


4.38 


19.80 


.80 


2.83 


1.07 


4.32 


3.03 


10 


Cincinnati, Ohio 


8.93 


2.14 


7.59 


.69 


3.83 


18.12 


1.38 


.73 


.52 


5.48 


3.75 


11 


Pittsburg, Pa 


9.07 




10.34 


1.59 


2.73 


15.60 


2.33 


3 01 


.82 


5.66 


4.69 


12 


New Orleans, La 


5.38 


.86 


6.20 


1.04 


1.39 


11.12 


.23 


.26 


.88 


5.03 


2.44 


VA 


Detroit, Mich 


13.36 


.28 


13.72 


1.03 


1.39 


21.44 


1.26 


2.68 


.90 




3.98 


14 


Milwaukee, Wis 


9.17 


.97 


12.15 


1.14 


.26 


20.49 


1.77 


1.42 


2.58 


5.63 


2.95 


15 


Washington, D. C... 


11.54 


4.62 


4.47 


1.19 


6.83 


19.84 


.15 


1 37 


2.30 


4.13 


2.96 


16 


Newark, N. J 


11.24 


1.07 


8.37 


1.97 


3.28 


21.79 


1.06 


.12 


1.87 


5.71 


3.65 


17 


Jersey City, N.J 


11.71 




6.70 


.23 


.79 


13.90 


.87 


.31 


.58 


4.48 


1.87 


18 


Louisville, Ky 


9.86 


3.83 


8.28 


.29 


2.36 


18.48 




1.67 


.54 


5.44 


3.92 


19 


Minneapolis, Minn. . . . 


7.36 


1.15 


11.05 


.84 


3.06 


25.03 


1.43 


2.33 


.71 


5.26 


1.39 


20 


Providence, R. I 


10.70 


.15 


10.30 


.73 


1.14 


21.40 


.64 


1.36 


2.09 


8.40 


1.73 


21 


Indianapolis, Ind 


9.93 


.15 


10.70 


.92 


2.24 


32.70 


1.57 


3.60 


.63 


6.62 


3.27 


22 


Kansas Citv, Mo 


9.30 


.92 


9.03 


1.15 


1.52 


20.20 


1.03 


3.60 


.82 


2.87 


3.30 


23 


St. Paul, Minn 


7.55 


1.48 


8.18 


.43 


1.01 


23.93 


.64 


2 33 


.68 


5.47 


6.19 


24 


Rochester, N. Y 


6.12 


.48 


7.43 


.86 


2.69 


16.98 


.13 


1.05 


.11 


7.72 


2.79 


25 


Denver, Col 


8.49 


.59 


8.22 


1.35 


1.84 


35.93 


1.28 


3 71 


1.05 


4.86 


2.20 


2t> 


Toledo, Ohio 


7.02 


1.36 


7.40 


.89 


.02 


25.33 


.69 


2.85 


.80 


4.92 


2.83 


27 


Allegheny, Pa 


8.41 




8.98 


.95 


4.57 


22.13 


1.93 


1.72 


.76 




2.75 


28 


Columbus, Ohio 


6.94 


1.91 


9.95 


1.08 


.89 


23.55 


.62 


.65 


.54 


4.23 


4.05 


29 


Worcester, Mass 


6.33 




7.09 


1.32 


5.82 


21.90 


1.01 


.95 


9.85 


5.16 


1.78 


3U 


Syracuse, N. Y 


6.00 


.59 


7.66 


1.37 


4.43 


17.87 


1.16 


1.33 




4.83 


3.56 


31 


New Haven, Conn 


13.59 


1.46 


9.88 


.54 


5.41 


26.34 


.95 


1.49 


1.36 


6.02 


2.76 


32 


Paterson, N. j- 


10.01 


.28 


9.78 


.67 


4.45 


25.48 


1.14 


1.62 


.91 


7.08 


2.79 


33 


Pall River, Mass 


8.64 




7.62 


1.58 


9.09 


20.20 


.94 


.11 




6.19 


1.44 


34 


St. Joseph, Mo 


6.79 


1.00 


6.79 


.19 


1.88 


17.73 


.86 


.99 


.02 


.04 


.99 


35 


Omaha, Nebr 


6.32 


.75 


8.18 


.58 


.65 


27.16 


1.16 


1.42 


1.48 


5.55 


1.59 


36 


Los Angeles, Cal 


8.37 


.51 


8.48 


.90 


.98 


33.75 


1.29 


4.20 


.57 


4.88 


2.41 


37 


Memphis, Tenn 


11.10 




1.00 


7.26 


3.71 


15.40 


.56 


.32 


.34 


5.40 


1.11 


38 


Scranton, Pa 


7.64 


.49 


7.50 


1.12 




41.40 


1.30 


,56 


1.06 


6.14 


2.09 


39 


Lowell, Mass 


9.69 




8.46 


.86 


7,66 


23.58 


1.17 


.80 


.88 


6.61 


2.01 


40 


Albany, N. Y 


10.77 


.45 


9.78 


1.15 


4.91 


20.25 


.66 


3.10 


1.02 


6.20 


.85 


41 


Cambridge, Mass 


5.95 




4.22 


.85 


6.65 


20.38 


.96 


.99 


4.42 


3.39 


1.39 


42 


Portland, Ore 


5.59 


.57 


8.40 


.59 


.46 


28.00 




1.33 


.62 


5.18 


4.09 


43 


Atlanta, Ga 


12.15 




10.11 


8.48 


5.13 


14.32 


.60 


1.16 


.69 


6.48 




44 


Grand Rapids, Mich. . 


8.19 


1.32 


11.84 


1.60 


1.48 


29.43 


.74 


2.26 


.68 




4.23 


45 


Dayton, Ohio 


9.36 


1.46 


7.93 


.91 


2.26 


33.70 


1.11 


.29 


.21 


5.58 


1.95 


46 


Richmond, Va 


8.27 


.33 


7.34 


.72 


3.40 


9.83 


.05 


.54 


.79 


2.71 


2.72 


47 


Nashville, Tenn 


10.85 


.59 


10.80 


1.62 


2.88 


20.60 


.61 






5.75 


H 


48 


Seattle, Wash 


7.64 


.84 


8.68 


1.31 


.76 


23.56 


1.67 


1.77 


1.05 


2.96 


1.51 


49 


Hartford, Conn 


8.29 


.42 


7.97 


.79 


5.51 


26.45 


.75 


2.28 


.97 


4.01 


3.01 


50 


Reading, Pa 


7.52 




6.08 


.70 




30.70 


.61 


2.01 


4.83 


10.10 


2.17 


51 


Wilmington, Del 


12.20 


.46 


5.44 


.76 


.01 


29.10 


1.05 


1.59 


1.31 


6.81 


2.02 


52 


Camden, N. J 


11.02 


.72 


10.30 


.74 


1.27 


28.90 


.23 


1 ,84 


.54 


10.00 


1.80 


53 


Trenton, N. J 


11.00 


.35 


9.12 


.84 


2.26 


27.80 


.71 


1.86 


.57 


6.95 


1.90 


54 


Bridgeport, Conn 


8.79 


1.05 


9.67 


.61 


8.72 


23.00 


1.59 


2.45 


1.08 


7.13 


3.58 


55 


Lynn, Mass 


6.61 




7.93 


.97 


9.02 


19.52 


1.16 


.74 


.77 


4.39 


.69 


66 


Oakland, Cal 


8.94 


1.05 


10.50 


1.96 


.31 


40.90 


2.14 


.72 


.59 


8.74 


2.40 


57 


Lawrence, Mass 


8.03 




7.34 


1.81 


8.81 


22.93 


1.46 


.88 


2.13 


4.49 


1.08 


58 


New Bedford, Mass.. 


11.14 




7.73 


2.97 


6.68 


23.08 


1.37 


2.26 


.75 


5.14 


1.46 


59 


Des Moines, Iowa... . 


6.84 


5.96 


10.90 


.49 


.36 


36.70 


1.52 


4.07 


1.58 


6.65 


2.28 


60 


Springfield, Mass 


5.81 




8.37 


.61 


4.94 


30.92 


2.57 


1.90 


1.14 


5.73 


2.14 


61 


Somerville, Mass 


6.38 




6.26 


.78 


3.93 


28.39 


1.62 


.92 


.98 


5.62 


1.51 


62 


Troy, N. Y 


11.02 


.44 


6.34 


1.96 


8.77 


21.18 




.23 


.64 


8.21 


10.46 


63 


Hoboken, N. J 


13.06 


.41 


9.99 


.81 


1.85 


22.51 


1.02 


.54 


.69 


3.31 


1.93 


64 


Evansville, Ind 


8.61 


.28 


10.08 


.37 


.38 


29.26 




.28 


.67 


4.68 


2.58 


65 


Manchester, N. H.. . . 


7.23 


.44 


14.06 


2.05 


3.28 


19.90 


.84 


.83 


.66 


9.42 


1.37 


66 


Utica, N. Y 


6.38 


.37 


11.65 


2.03 


2.63 


26.04 


.94 


1.07 


.59 


9.66 


3.56 


67 


Peoria, 111 


9.12 


2.15 


8.98 


.86 


3.28 


28.68 


1.58 


4.10 


.75 


5.02 


2.42 


68 


Charleston, S. C 


14.78 




7.94 


1.96 


10.66 


12.76 


.08 


1.54 


1.19 


4.49 


2.46 



* Percentages obtained from data published in Bulletin 42 of the Department of 
22 



No. 2 

devoted to each of the municipal departments for the fiscal year igoi 

above jo,ooo population 





-d 










ui 


oi 














.S 
.S 

'u 

& 


a 

a 

0) 

^« 

o 


> 
o 
E 

W) 
aj 
.Q 

o 


a 
o 


u 
o 


j 


1 

.£? 

o 

3 


f 

•d 

1 
o 
Q 


1 

■d 

a 

1 


1 


'u 
<u 

6 


i 

ti 

m 


1 
o 




.10 


4.27 


2.55 


13.30 


2.91 






.84 


.86 


.07 


.001 


.09 


26.47 


1 




1.33 


2.39 


6.80 


6.80 




1.49 


.10 


.50 


.02 




.07 


7.03 


2 




2.35 


3.59 


7.48 


7.40 




.07 i 


.53 


.04 


.01 


.05 


14.60 


3 


1.73 


3.37 


2.49 


8.93 


7.50 






.66 




.07 






8.70 


4 


.75 


7.49 


2.84 


15.49 


2.79 








2.02 


.001 


.32 


.71 


18.10 


5 


.01 


2.46 


2.17 


20.32 


5.18 






.07 


.27 


.39 




.10 


13.20 


6 




.99 


2.15 


14.83 


5.71 






.86 




.44 


.61 




10.00 


7 




2.02 


1.99 


11.29 


7.44 






.88 


.13 


.24 


.002 


.05 


13.60 


8 


.24 


1.87 




.25 










.11 








32.80 


9 




1.92 


.43 


27.94 


7.72 






.07 


.57 


.21 






7.90 


10 




3.12 


1.73 


17.54 


4.29 






.08 


.43 


.22 






16.70 


11 




.37 


2.23 


18.60 










.001 


.09 






43.80 


12 




8.59 


1.60 


8.19 


1.40 




2.66 


.006 


.19 


.18 






17.10 


13 


2.12 


4.11 


4.89 


8.46 


4.07 






.47 


1.63 




.30 




15.50 


14 


.05 


6.22 


2.04 


9.63 


5.42 








.23 


.12 




.04 


16.83 


15 






1.83 


21.02 


6.04 






.002 


.10 


.55 




.12 


10.20 


16 




4.31 




27.61 


15.42 






.12 










11.10 


17 




5.35 




17.41 


5.30 






.31 






.02 




16.90 


18 


3.81 


2.20 


.04 


12.78 


4.54 








.85 






.16 


16.00 


19 




6.70 


.83 


18.50 


3.93 








.87 




.71 


.63 


9.93 


20 


2.44 


1.60 


2.45 


7.53 


.17 








.33 




.55 




13.20 


21 


.36 


2.24 


.70 


11.80 


6.81 








.23 




.11 


.001 


24.10 


22 


1.13 




.84 


16.54 


4.04 








1.75 


.09 






17.69 


23 


1.23 


1.79 


3.29 


16.14 


3.16 








.71 




1.06 


.08 


26.10 


24 


2.33 


3.49 


.20 


7.09 












.15 






17.20 


25 




4.65 


.76 


20.71 


4.28 


.16 






1.56 


.39 


.62 




12.70 


26 




2.30 


1.70 


15.65 


12.73 




6.03 


.21 




.34 






9.50 


27 




6.20 


.88 


19.13 


6.93 








.03 




.51 




11.65 


28 


1.54 


9.88 


.76 


18.21 


2.15 








.05 




1.05 


.02 


4.60 


29 


1.00 


3.32 


2.87 


12.88 


4.70 








.95 


.31 


.05 


.23 


24.90 


30 


1.92 


5.57 


.41 


11.09 








.005 


.98 








10.10 


31 


.32 


3.33 


2.44 


12.40 


















17.20 


32 


.60 


7.74 


1.99 


14.34 


3.22 












1.25 




15.00 


33 




6.68 


.34 


8.02 






2.06 




.05 


.11 






44.50 


34 




3.08 


.20 


17.97 


















23.90 


35 


3.79 


6.91 


.83 


4.70 












.12 






17.30 


36 


2.28 


10.70 
6.66 




17.60 
7.43 








.79 


1.64 
.63 


.85 






9.99 
16.10 


37 
38 


.72 


3.86 


2.38 


12.44 


6.70 








.69 




.57 




10.88 


39 




4.56 


.02 


15.00 


8.50 








.32 


.18 




.13 


12.05 


40 


1.23 


7.41 


2.61 


15.08 


3.72 








.99 




.84 


1.01 


18.90 


41 




1.10 


.47 


31.70 


3.62 








.88 








7.54 


42 




8.05 




12.31 


9.63 








.10 




1.06 




9.65 


43 




1.20 


.60 


8.79 


5.74 




2.27 




.50 


.19 


1.59 




17.28 


44 


.07 


2.02 


2.29. 


18.30 


4.34 






.04 


1.21 


.54 






6.37 


45 


.12 


4.39 


1.60 


29.78 


2.69 


10.82 






.34 


.53 


.71 




12.. 24 


46 


1.47 


6.27 


4.32 


19.60 


7.25 










.29 






7.07 


47 




2.76 


.09 


24.60 


5.79 






.23 


.004 








14.71 


48 


1.57 


8.40 


1.70 


12.88 


5.23 








.93 




.31 


.14 


8.32 


49 




6.11 


2.49 


8.89 


6.43 










.17 






11.30 


50 




5.57 


4.21 


12.00 


8.35 














.05 


8.95 


51 




3.46 


1.21 


14.98 


7.10 
















7.37 


52 




1.91 


2.31 


18.20 


6.10 
















8.18 


53 


.96 


6.99 


3.39 


9.18 










.75 








11.20 


54 


1.77 


6.53 


2.96 


16.74 


6.30 












2.37 




11.46 


55 


2.05 


3.13 




3.26 








1.10 










12.20 


56 


1.43 


3.73 


3.70 


12.11 


11.07 








.90 




1.32 




6.75 


57 




5.51 


2.35 


15.27 


3.54 






.57 


.01 




3.18 


.08 


6.84 


58 




1.41 


.13 


6.88 










2.19 




1.09 


.11 


16.20 


59 


2.33 


7.02 
8.06 


1.99 
3.08 


12.05 
4.71 


3.76 
4.99 








.17 






.05 


8.34 
22.72 


60 
61 


.75 


1.10 


2.92 


8.13 


7.60 








.02 


.11 


.07 


.01 


9.98 


62 




.20 


1.06 


7.84 


19.35 












.61 


.18 


14.59 


63 


1.18 


.89 


.83 


17.38 


9.59 






.25 


.16 


.19 


2.06 




10.21 


64 


.57 


7.35 


2.76 


13.00 


4.93 








.77 




1.98 




8.56 


65 




1.11 


3.52 


5.09 










1.73 






.17 


23.44 


66 




2.71 


.09 


7.39 










1.11 








21.71 


67 


.25 


2.74 


3.90 


25.66 






1 




.51 






9.08 


68 



Labor, Septepiber, 1902. 



23 



Table 

Showing percentages of total amount expended for tnaintenance and operation 

All cities in the United States 





City. 


6 


•5, 

^ 


+3 

c 




E 

3 
cS 




oj - 






3 


G 

'a 






0, 


1- 






















^ 


o 
o 


<a 


-a 


"rt 


t/i 






. 


.2- 


"o 






8 
"o 


8^ 

Ph 


•d 




o u 


o 
o 
,^ 
o 








'S 

3 


M 


fiQ 


Savannah, Ga 


14.17 


.01 


12.45 


2.91 


2.90 


ib) 




1.41 


.79 


5.99 


2.47 


70 


Salt Lake City, Utah. 


5.11 


.71 


5.45 


.67 


1.26 


33.49 


.72 


.99 


.44 


3.95 


1.86 


71 


San Antonio, Tex 


8.78 




8.19 


2.78 


1.34 


20.12 




2.37 


.63 




3.27 


7?. 


Duluth, Minn 


4.11 


1.38 


8.72 


.60 


1.32 


24.02 


.85 


.86 


.86 


2.34 


.38 


73 


Erie, Pa 


6.96 
11.26 


.40 
.14 


11.91 
5.41 


1.51 
1 42 


4.17 


31.12 
26.69 


1.53 


.83 


.46 


8.42 
4.77 


1.23 


74 


Elizabeth, N.J 




75 


Wilkesbarre, Pa 


9.44 


.28 


9.66 


.86 




38.80 




.13 


1.92 


10.80 




76 


Kansas City, Kans. . . 


9.53 


.95 


7.31 


4.18 




21.20 


.31 


.23 


.73 


6.03 


2.45 


77 


Harrisburg, Pa 


6.83 




4.47 


5.68 


.06 


35.20 




.77 


.22 


7.54 


.76 


78 


Portland, Me 


6.10 




8.76 


.61 


5.14 


20.10 


.88 


.61 


3.55 


5.40 


2.74 


7q 


Yonkers, N. Y 


9.68 


1.04 


5.86 


2.95 


.69 


24.90 


.53 


2.85 


.46 


4.77 


2.04 


80 


Norfolk, Va 


7.29 
9.77 


.01 
1.13 


5.52 
8.21 


3.17 
.63 


1.48 


6.96 
42.49 


.18 
.65 


1.15 
.89 


2.32 
1.58 


1.96 
5.40 


4.23 


81 


Waterbury, Conn 


2.30 


H?, 


Holyoke, Mass 


6.11 




9.26 


.84 


6.38 


24.89 


.76 


.94 


.39 


3.81 


1.07 


88 


Fort Wayne, Ind 


8.78 




15.34 


1.32 




30.71 


1.40 


2.92 


.59 


7.99 


2.89 


84 


Youngstown, Ohio. . . 


10.73 


.72 


8.49 


1.52 


3.28 


34.93 


.69 


.37 


1.17 


5.88 


4.86 


85 


Houston, Tex 


7.79 




9.28 


3.39 




18.24 




.28 


.48 


3.17 




86 


Covington, Ky 


8.22 


1.53 


7.12 


3.45 


3.86 


19.70 






.70 


4.25 


1.85 


87 


Akron, Ohio 


8.52 


.75 


10.86 


.01 


2.12 


44.16 


2.44 


.44 


.39 


7.20 


1.37 


88 


Dallas, Tex 


8.36 
7.88 


1.26 
.66 


10.72 
7.19 


4.28 
.64 


3.41 


19.08 
34.00 


.75 

.58 


.61 
.13 


.02 
.24 


5.12 
4.30 


2.27 


8q 


Saginaw, Mich 


2.08 


90 


Lancaster, Pa 


6.43 




6.13 


.61 


.56 


35.66 






.33 


11.02 


2.29 


91 


Lincoln, Nebr 


4.46 


.43 


8.23 


.95 


.08 


33.41 


1.25 


.02 


.70 


3.91 


.96 


9?. 


Brockton, Mass 


6.68 




8.61 


1.65 


6.16 


22.10 


1.05 




1.83 


5.14 


1.09 


93 


Binghamton, N. Y.. . 


6.54 


.41 


5.98 


1.29 


2.99 


35.30 


.43 


.72 


.59 


10.20 


2.38 


94 




11.02 
7.03 


1.05 


10.11 
5.79 


1.47 


4.26 
3.23 


17.91 
20.30 


1.08 


.18 
.36 


.87 
1.67 


4.58 
5.01 


.32 


95 


Pawtucket, R. I 


2.16 


96 




6.36 
8.39 


.25 
1.42 


8.75 
9.65 


.71 
.95 


.52 


32.20 
21.64 


1.15 


1.11 


.21 


5.99 


1.79 


97 


Wheeling, W. Va 


2.20 


98 


Mobile, Ala 


13.86 


.40 


8.60 


.71 


3.57 


16.48 




.65 


.98 


6.59 


1.77 


99 


Birmingham, Ala 


10.90 


3.44 


9.28 


.85 


1.41 


12.30 




.99 


.14 


4.18 




TOO 


Little Rock, Ark 


15.54 




14.44 


.97 


3.99 


38.41 




1.82 


.54 






101 


Springfield, Ohio 


7.31 


1.06 


6.78 


.84 


2.37 


27.53 


1.00 


2.09 


.40 


8.94 




^a?. 


Galveston, TeX 


8.80 




11.30 


4.20 


6.19 


21.10 


.30 


.04 


.52 






103 


Tacoma, Wash 


5.04 


.39 


6.72 


.60 


.43 


23.49 


.73 


.98 


1.86 






104 


Haverhill, Mass 


5.73 




8.50 


.63 


6.91 


21.28 


1.09 


1.28 


.55 


6.36 


.80 


105 


Spokane, Wash 


6.59 


1.10 


12.28 


.99 


1.36 


28.73 


.56 


1.04 


.29 


2.03 


.93 


106 


Terra Haute, Ind 


7.54 


.24 


9.96 


1.94 


.11 


34.51 


2.09 


.52 


.29 


6.83 


3.10 


107 


Dubuque, Iowa 


7.63 




8.87 


.48 


.32 


25.92 




.29 


1.30 


6.62 


3.77 


108 




7.65 
6.90 


1.97 


10.31 
11.00 


1.29 
.22 




29.93 
26.70 


1.57 
1.50 


2.28 
.96 


.82 
.73 


7.19 
6.58 


1.50 


109 


So. Bend. Ind 


6.20 


110 




6.97 
7.92 


.27 


6.39 
4.57 


2.66 
..50 


8.59 


21.18 
46.80 


1.34 


1.14 
.69 


.58 
1.12 


6.68 
8.26 


1.05 


111 


Johnstown, Pa 

Elmira, N. Y 


3.65 


11? 


7.44 




11.50 


1.62 


2.18 


27.60 


.42 


1.42 


2.28 


7.92 


.79 


113 


Allentown, Pa 


5.58 




8.04 


.79 




39.74 








8.46 


.65 


114 


Davenport, Iowa .... 


7.65 




7.30 


1.32 




43.80 


.11 


2.16 


.53 


2.79 


2.80 


115 


McKeesport, Pa 


10.15 




9.71 


.95 




30.48 


.87 




.44 


5.92 


2.61 


116 


Springfield, III 


8.60 


1.15 


11.90 


.60 




28.20 


.79 




.59 


6.04 


3.69 


117 


Chelsea, Mass 


5.32 




5.21 


2.54 


8.02 


18.86 


.59 


.21 


.67 


4.22 


.75 


118 


Chester, Pa 


9.90 

10.18 

5.96 




6.22 
6.85 
6.03 


1.78 
1.94 
1.20 


.14 
7.01 


36.90 
37.69 
28.10 


1.73 


.99 
.16 
.24 


.79 
.12 


8.92 

11.32 

5.27 


.40 


119 


York, Pa 




120 


Maiden, Mass 




121 


Topeka, Kans 


7.81 


.67 


8.75 


2.95 


.54 


31.67 


1.88 


1.69 


.42 




2.42 


122 


Newton, Mass 


6.76 




5.39 


1.78 


4.24 


18.92 


1.52 


.38 


.40 


5.53 


2.21 


123 


Sioux City, Iowa 


5.19 


.35 


6.72 


1.20 




27.99 


.59 


.28 


1.68 


3.96 


1.52 


124 


Bayonne, N. J 


8.48 


.16 


2.84 


1.33 


.68 


28.33 


.87 




.51 


6.45 


1.37 


125 


Knoxville, Tenn 


8.67 




8.79 


.69 


3.54 


19.93 








9.59 




126 


Schenectady, N. Y.. . 


7.52 


.39 


7.56 


5.71 


2.67 


20.57 




.15 


1.11 


8.75 


1.83 


127 


Fitchburg, Mass 


6.99 




6.23 


.92 


9.28 


22.35 


1.39 


.54 


1.02 


6.35 


.98 


128 


Superior, Wis 


6.34 


.56 


9.19 


2.17 


3.35 


29.24 


1.04 




.43 


2.95 


4.55 


129 


Rockford, 111 


5.69 


.56 


9.94 


.66 


.39 


36.06 


2.19 


.24 


1.25 


7.21 


3.26 


130 


Taunton, Mass 


8.66 


.22 


5.92 


.87 


7.17 


25.02 


1.27 


.25 


.74 


1.74 


1.83 


131 


Canton, Ohio 


7.24 


.86 


11.04 


1.25 


.99 


33.35 


.72 


.72 


2.10 


7.79 




132 


Butte, Mont 


11.75 


1.49 


7.59 


2.43 




34.70 


2.36 




.05 


4.47 


2.08 


133 


Montgomery, Ala 


11.45 




7.84 


2.76 


.46 


10.26 








5.54 


5.80 


134 


Auburn, N. Y 


6.97 


.52 


7.15 


1.06 


5.73 


27.99 


.69 






10.45 


2.62 


135 


Chattanooga, Tenn.. 


12.31 




13.26 


5.38 


2.53 


17.85 


.20 


1.59 


.16 


2.41 


1.87 


136 


E. St. Louis, 111 


10.47 


.80 


8.71 


1.59 




25.64 


1.86 




.82 


5.15 


12.62 


137 


Joliet, 11! 


11.98 




12.23 


1.87 


.84 


27.62 


1.59 


2.25 


.59 


6.86 


2.86 



' Percentages obtained from data published in Bulletin No. 42 of the Department of 
(6) No data for school expenditures. 

24 



No. 2 (Continued) 

devoted to each of the municipal departments for the fiscal year igoi 

above jo,ooo population 





•i 










m 
















ti 

3 
.S 

'u 


a 
<u 
p. 

X 

V 

<u 

s . 
1^S 


"3 
> 

S 
8, 


4J 

1 

o 




1 


1 
i 


> 
u 

1 
■a 




B 


.2 

'u 




0) 






o 


1 

O 


<u 

a 








o 
P 




1 


s 

U 




O 




.19 


6.63 


6.81 


25.57 


4.60 






.09 




.83 


.89 




11.30 


69 


3.17 


2.55 


1.28 


21.31 


4.73 












1.14 




11.14 


70 


.90 


13.40 


2.60 


22.16 


















13.50 


71 


.74 


3.95 




28.12 


3.62 


3.48 






2.31 


.07 






12.22 


72 




2.81 




8.69 


14.17 






.16 


.12 








10.09 


73 




5.65 


1.49 


26.92 


















11.60 


74 




10.30 




6.56 














.55 




10.80 


75 




2.94 




25.84 










1.47 




.06 




16.72 


76 




8.05 


.13 


12.80 


6.44 








.02 








11.00 


77 




6.85 


.55 


11.90 










1.33 




3.51 


.03 


22.00 


78 


.89 


2.94 


3.77 


19.50 


6.58 








.08 


.23 




.28 


9.84 


79 


.13 


5.12 
3.60 


3.77 


29.45 
14.50 


7.52 
4.11 








.40 


.05 


1.00 




22.01 
1.33 


80 
81 


1.15 


2.00 


2.16 


11.77 


3.51 








.22 






.07 


24.64 


82 


.04 


2.47 
2.22 


1.99 
.31 


6.43 
7.93 


6.59 
6.17 








.43 


.08 






9.99 
10.76 


83 
84 




8.54 


2.69 


22.32 


4.84 








.03 








19.29 


85 




5.89 




18.44 


8.64 










.02 






16.29 


86 


1.45 






5.69 










.49 








14.14 


87 


.62 


4.79 


.36 


23.29 


7.04 
















10.59 


88 




6.40 


.73 


13.50 


6.11 






.12 


1.39 




1.12 




10.20 


89 




5.71 


2.49 


9.90 


10.37 
















8.50 


90 




2.55 


.13 


24.92 


6.81 








.31 




.79 




10.06 


91 


1.57 


12.60 


1.26 


14.40 


2.55 












.45 




12.90 


92 


.15 


4.52 




4.30 


6.58 








.27 








17.40 


93 


.40 


1.08 


.95 


18.99 


6.11 








.39 




1.46 




18.89 


94 


1.30 


3.67 


.54 


26.60 


9.02 








.03 




1.05 




11.50 


95 




4.78 




13.80 


7.66 








.20 


.31 






16.10 


96 




.23 


1.95 


5.99 


11.66 


18.25 


5.19 






.48 


.32 




9.84 


97 




9.52 




13.35 


8.29 






.43 




1.36 


1.42 




12.07 


98 




7.22 


4.03 


28.91 










.28 




.51 




15.55 


99 




5.89 




2.79 






4.99 








.54 




10.07 


100 




11.73 


.65 


13.06 


4.77 








1.41 


.67 


.08 




9.23 


101 




5.48 




20.00 


6.47 




5.14 






.05 


.41 




10.10 


102 




3.83 




32.69 


4.69 




9.91 


.35 










8.32 


103 


1.56 


7.37 


.47 


21.23 


3.46 








.45 




.07 




11.36 


104 


.74 


2.90 




26.41 


2.87 








.70 








10.43 


105 


.12 


2.29 


1.32 


5.30 














1.25 




22.50 


106 




7.06 


.61 


17.70 


5.31 










.02 






13.85 


107 




3.03 


.89 


17.58 












.04 


.35 




13.52 


108 




6.08 




12.10 


9.11 








1.16 




.55 




10.40 


109 


.74 


8.40 
2.28 
6.50 


.47 


9.42 

12.80 

5.65 


6.18 








.29 

.36 

1.25 


.11 
.09 


1.18 
1.79 




16.36 
10.80 
21.60 


110 
111 
112 




4.30 


1.29 


13.52 


11.00 












1 


6.61 


113 


2.54 


3.15 
2.56 
2.11 


1.38 
.44 


5.08 

8.98 

13.80 


8.64 
6.99 








1.41 




2.88 




17.91 
18.21 
12.60 


114 
115 
116 


1.39 


4.20 

4.82 
7.77 


1.39 

.79 

7.25 


8.71 

12.80 

9.70 


2.38 










.07 






35.47 
15.70 

7.28 


117 
118 
119 


1.68 


10.97 


1.82 


8.60 


6.19 












1.48 




13.54 


120 


.06 


7.65 


.18 


16.00 






4.07 




.11 








13.08 


121 


1.44 


12.45 


1.01 


25.37 


1.72 












.02 


.04 


10.79 


122 




8.06 


1.88 


23.63 


5.38 








2.39 




.09 




9.05 


123 


.08 


1.15 

6.74 


1.31 


20.13 
28.56 


2.35 






.04 










23.55 
13.46 


124 
125 


.37 


5.28 




12.70 


12.91 








.39 








12.03 


126 


.87 


8.57 
22.45 


.57 


16.58 


6.22 








1.59 
.60 




1.22 




8.29 
17.06 


127 

128 




6.23 


.62 


8.33 


9.98 








.38 








6.95 


129 




7.06 


.24 


17.47 


5.11 




6.32 








.46 




9.63 


130 




.66 




12.43 


10.49 










.01 






10.31 


131 


2.31 


6.59 


.52 


6.66 


















16.95 


132 






1.65 


30.85 


15.36 










.42 


.91 




6.67 


133 




6.61 


1.34 


7.60 


6.81 












.23 




14.17 


134 


.09 


7.47 
13.. 59 
11.75 


2.48 
1.29 


18.30 
3.40 


6.23 








.70 








12.99 

18.39 

8.58 


135 
136 
137 



Labor, September, 1902. 



25 



2 6 Some Fiscal Aspects of Public Education 

Before subjecting to interpretation the gross amounts of 
expenditures for 1900 and 1901 for the various items, certain 
minor corrections of these amotmts were made, with the aid of 
the explanatory notes accompanyng the tables. Wherever an 
amount not properly belonging to the municipal accoimts, as, 
for instance, expenditures in which the city acted as agent of 
the county in fulfilling some function of county government, had 
been included in the gross expenditures, such amounts were 
deducted. Wherever an amount properly belonging to the 
municipal budget had not been included, it was added to the 
amount of the gross expenditures. These additions were 
practically all due to amounts expended by state and county 
upon public schools. The total number of corrections was very 
small — not over six or eight on either of the two tables. 

Transformation of Gross Itemized Expenditures to a Percentile 
Basis. — The first operation was to transform the gross itemized 
expenditures to a percentile basis. This process, even by the 
use of indispensable labo^-saving devices, was of necessity a 
long and tedious one. These transformed percentile amounts 
are contained in Tables i and 2 (pages 18-25) ^-^^ form the 
immediate basis for the operations which are described later on. 

The primary advantage of making comparisons on a per- 
centile basis rather than on one of gross or per capita amount 
consists in placing, as it were, all cities whether large or small 
in the same category, thus giving a definite series of comparable 
statistics for the city as a type. The apparent disadvantage 
consists in a chance of placing the so-called expensive, efficient, 
and well-governed city in the same class with the parsimonious 
and possibly inefficient and undesirable community. For ex- 
ample, one of two cities of about equal size might have a budget 
of twice the amount of the other ; it might spend twice as much 
as the other on its schools, fire, health, street, and police de- 
partments. On the percentile basis these two cities would be 
placed on an equality. The necessary provisions for correcting 
this disadvantage will be explained as the occasion renders it 
necessary in the interpretation of the results. 

V. Variability of Expenditures 
General Statement. — Even a superficial examination of the 
tables, giving the itemized percentile expenditures, discloses a 



Some Fiscal Aspects of Public Education 



27 



remarkable range in the percentile amounts in the identical 
municipal departments of the different cities. This variability 
is not confined to cities of great differences in population or 
location. Even within a comparatively small population or 
territorial group, a wide divergence in the percentile distribu- 
tion of the total amount of the budget among the various 
items is prominent. 

The percentile expenditures assembled from the data of Table 
I, and given in Table 3 are illustrative of this divergence. The 
cities concerned were selected at random. Cities 7, 8, and 9 
are cities of from 350,000 to 400,000 population, located re- 
spectively in the eastern, central, and extreme western portions 
of the country. Cities 36, 37, and 38 are respectively eastern, 
southern, and western communities, and are each of approxi- 
mately 100,000 population. Cities 81, 95, 120, and 126 are New 
York or New England cities of from 30,000 to 50,000 population. 

Table No. 3 

Typical examples of variability of percentile expenditures. Statistics for year 

igoo. {Read across) 



City No.* 


7 


8 


9 


36 


37 


38 


81 


95 


120 


126 


Police Department, 






















Courts, Jails, etc. . 


10.55 


13.51 


16.78 


10.28 


11.20 


8.57 


9.92 


6.80 


5.23 


11.13 


Fire Department 


9.83 


11.00 


9.88 


9.14 


9.41 


7.39 


7.66 


5.40 


6.39 


6.36 


Health Department . 


1.54 


.72 


1.66 


.91 


7.46 


.71 


.71 




2.58 


1.82 


Hospitals and Chari- 






















ties 


2.73 


2.60 


3.82 


.29 


3.55 






2.62 


6.35 


2.37 


Schools 


23.70 


19.10 


20.90 


32.70 


15.90 


48.60 


39.50 


17.70 


21.90 


24.50 


Libraries and Mu- 
























1.65 
.79 


1.65 
3.21 


.75 
2.66 


1.39 

4.08 


.70 
.23 


1.42 
.64 


.24 

.24 


.99 
.11 


1.53 
1.23 


61 


Parks 


.17 


Sewers 


.69 


.20 


.82 


.31 




1.03 


1.18 


1.46 


1.42 


1.48 


Municipal Lighting. . 


5.15 


5.79 


3.94 


3.27 


5.17 


6.37 


5.18 


4.51 


4.63 


7.12 


Street Cleaning 


1.20 


2.98 


2.70 


6.49 


3.06 


1.85 


2.01 


1.61 


1.86 


6.42 


Other Street Expen- 






















ditures 


1.99 


4.02 


3.13 


5.91 


10.30 


2.06 


2.24 


4.60 


10.90 


6.01 


Garbage removal 


1.50 


1.86 




.82 




.43 


1.65 


.52 


1.63 


.24 


Interest on debt 


14.40 


10.90 


.25 


4.89 


18.60 


8.06 


12.60 


25.00 


8.12 


16.10 


Waterworks 


5.89 


5.86 










4.56 


19.50 


5.31 


12.30 


Gas-works 






















Electric-Light Plants 




Docks and Wharves. 




.76 






.76 












Ferries and Bridges . 


2.25 


.18 


.10 




2.35 


.69 






.08 


.47 


Markets 


.45 


.23 






.67 














.65 
15.10 


.01 

.02 

15.40 


32.50 


19.40 


10.60 


12.30 


12.20 


.70 
8.56 


1.36 
20.60 




Baths, etc 




Other items 


2.92 


Total 


100.06 


100.00 


99.79 


99.88 


99.96 


100.12 


99.89 


100.08 


100.12 


100.02 



Tables of Frequency. — The data of Table 4 present the so- 
called tables of frequency for certain items of expenditure, for 
which complete and fairly reliable information was given in the 
• For names of cities, consult Table i, pp. 18-21. 



28 



Some Fiscal Aspects of Public Education 



original tables for all, or approximately all, of the cities. These 
items were selected for study because they pertained to im- 
portant municipal functions, and also because the original data, 
from which the percentile data were developed, presented these 
expenditures in a clear manner, free from apparent admixture 
with other items. 

Table No. 4 
Tables of frequency. Percentile expenditures for maintenance and operation 
All cities in the United States above 30,000 population 
Fiscal years igoo and igoi 



(a) 
Police Department. 



Per cent. 

2 
' 3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 



Below 



Frequency. 
1900 

1 

2 

3 
13 
15 
23 
14 
16 

3 

8 

6 

4 

3 



1 

1 



1 



Frequency. 
1901 





2 
10 
24 
19 
22 
14 

7 
10 

2 

6 

1 

1 

1 



1 



Average. 
1900-1901 



2 

3 
10 
19 
17 
22 
13 

6 

9 

3 

4 

1 

1 



1 

1 



Police Department, Police Courts, Jails, 
Workhouses, Reformatories, etc. 
Frequency. Frequency. Average. 
1900-1901 



1900 



1 

4 
15 
13 
16 
22 
17 
10 

8 

4 
10 

5 

1 

4 





2 

1 



1901 




1 

9 

21 

16 

23 

15 

11 

16 

6 

6 

4 

3 

2 

1 

1 

1 





1 



!3 '-' 

^^ 

01 

o « 

%^ 
>^^ 















0)^ 


Total, 


114 


120 


112 


133 


137 


cX 
22s 






(c) 




(d) 


Jg 06 




Fire Department. 




Street Lighting. 


1 











1 





1— 1 


1 











5 


2 


P30 


2 


1 


1 


1 


7 


12 


a-' 


3 


2 








14 


9 




4 


5 


5 


7 


25 


24 


C<X) 


5 


16 


12 


14 


25 


33 


>* . 


6 


17 


16 


14 


20 


24 


(U ti 


7 


21 


23 


23 


13 


10 


^ a> 


8 


18 


28 


23 


10 


9 


rH eg 


9 


20 


17 


22 


5 


3 


-J" 3 


10 


13 


15 


12 


2 


5 


-g.^Srt 


11 


9 


11 


8 


3 


2 


j3 "T) 
S +* 


12 


4 


4 


4 






g 


13 


4 


2 


1 






rt 


14 
15 


2 


2 
1 


3 










Total, 132 



137 



132 



130 



133 



Some Fiscal Aspects of Public Education 29 

Table No. 4 {Continued) 

Tables of frequency. Percentile expenditures for maintenance and opera- 
tion. All cities in the United States above 30,000 population 
Fiscal years igoo and iqoi 

ie) (/) 

Schools. Libraries, Museums, Art Galleries. 

Per cent. Frequency. Frequency. Average. Per cent. Frequency. Frequency. Average. 
1900 1901 1900-1901 1900 1901 1900-1901 



6 


1 


1 


1 


Below .1 


4 


2 




7 


1 








.1 


3 


4 




8 








1 


.2 


2 


3 




9 





1 





.3 


9 


2 




10 


3 


1 


2 


.4 


6 


3 




11 


1 


1 





.5 


7 


7 


12 


1 


2 


2 


.6 


8 


11 


13 


2 


2 


1 


.7 


5 


9 




14 


1 


1 


3 


.8 


6 


8 


—1 o 


15 


5 


2 


1 


.9 


2 


6 




16 


3 


2 


2 


1.0 


11 


10 


is 


17 


10 


6 


8 


1.1 


7 


7 


18 


7 


6 


6 


1.2 


4 


6 


T^ 1—1 


19 


3 


9 


8 


1.3 


4 


6 


20 
21 


7 
11 


10 
10 


8 

7 


1.4 
1.5 


5 

4 


3 
9 




22 


6 


5 


5 


1.6 


4 


3 


li'^ 


23 


7 


7 


■ 7 


1.7 


6 


4 


24 


6 


3 


9 


1.8 


3 


2 


^".o 


25 


8 


6 


10 


1.9 


2 


1 


cS'' 


26 


4 


6 


6 


2.0 


1 


1 


•U'S fe 
y 2 fe 

d 5 P 


27 


3 


7 


3 


2.1 





2 


28 
29 


6 

1 


8 
5 


5 
3 


2.2 
2.3 




2 



2 


30 
31 


3 

4 


4 
2 


3 

2 


2.4 
2.5 


1 




1 

1 




32 


4 


2 


2 


2.6 







33 


3 


5 


4 


2.7 







ag P. 


34 


5 


4 


5 


2.8 


1 




35 


4 


4 


4 








36 


2 


4 


5 


Total, 


107 


112 


> 4^ -g 


37 

38 


3 
1 


1 
2 


1 

2 










39 


3 




2 








O^ P- 


40 


1 




1 










41 







1 








§-^2 


42 
















8^1 


43 


















44 
















45 


1 





1 








O 


46 





1 


1 










47 

















48 


1 














Total, 


132 


136 


132 






# 





30 Some Fiscal Aspects of Public Education 

Table No. 4 {Continued) 
lables of frequency Percentile expenditures for maintenance and o^omt^n.. 
All ctttes ^n the United States above 30,000 population °t""'^'°'' 
Piscal years igoo and igoi 

Health Department. pi^w 

Below"; f"' "t'^' '^ ^"«-%er-.teS-: 
'1 1 , ^ 2 2 

o ^ 10 10 8 

i 233 9 12 



•3 4 1 

•4 9 4 



2 25 

8 6 1 



^ 9 4 7 Re 



•I 14 10 

•8 8 15 10 



5 5 

8 3 6 



.9 15 12 11 



2.5 3 1 



5 6 



;-J 4 7 8 I t -X 

}1 9 6 3 5 { 2§ 

1-3 7 8 5 4 J §-• 

2 5 



J-4 3 3 6 

;•? ^ 4 ^ ^ ^ -gs 

IS 2 S 3 6 2 "^i" . 

19 2 II ^ .2 ^Z^ 

2:0 III II Sil 

i-2 ? i 3 ? Sil 

2-3 2 0? \ I ^"-^ 

2.4 1 1 i i ^ ceo 

OK i 1 2 2 1 -.2 c 



1 4 8-^2 



2-6-1 12 % ^ flS 

2.7 02! ^ U^ 

li ? 2 2 ^ ^ ||g 

on \ 4 1 -SSS 

3-0 1 1 1 - ^1^ 

%\ 10 J go-g 

11 ? 1 2 i i^a 

3.4 11 no ^-^ "^ 

?R 2 ^c!3 

3-6 12 ^S« 

3-7 1 1 ^^S 

3.8 Of) "S^^ 

3.9 n ^-^"^ 

4.0 ? ? ^^g, 

4.1 n 1 i-"^ 3oo 
A o H 1 1 o a ^ 

11 g ' g ^ ^"'^' 

^^^°i <t o , ^^^°- Total, 114 121 

at 5.8 1 at 5.3 1 

" 5.6 1 

" 5.7 1 

" 7.2 1 
" 8.4 1 

Total, 126 136 126 



Some Fiscal Aspects of Public Education 31 

Explanation of Tables of Frequency. — Table 4(a) contains the 
facts of the distribution of the percentile expenditures for the 
police department. Column i gives the range of percentile ex- 
penditures; column 2 gives the number of cities, in accordance 
with the statistics of Table i, spending any certain per cent, of 
their gross expenditures for the maintenance and operation of 
the police department for the year 1900.^ Column 3 gives 
similar information for the year 1901; column 4 represents the 
average percentile expenditures for the years 1900 and 1901. 
The totals are of the number of cities for which information is 
given for any year. Thus the first line of Table 4(a) would read 
as follows: In 1900, one city spent 2 % ^ of its gross expendi- 
tures for maintenance and operation upon its police depart- 
ment; no city spent this per cent, in 1901; and there were no 
cities with an average percentile expenditure of 2 % for the 
police department. The fourth line of this table would read as 
follows: In 1900, 13 cities each spent 5 % of their gross ex- 
penditures for municipal maintenance and operation for the 
maintenance and operation of police service; in 1901, 10 cities 
each spent this per cent. ; according to the average of the two 
years, 10 cities spent this per cent. 

Table 4 (a) does not contain the data for all the cities. This 
was due to the fact that many cities do not separate in their 
accounts the expenditures for the police department from those 
incurred by reason of jails, police courts, etc. The data for 
this combined item are presented in Table 4(&). 

The remaining divisions of the table are similar in nature to 
division (a) and need no further explanation. 

Graphical Representation of Variability. — Figures i to 10, 
pp. 32-34, represent diagrammatically the tables of frequency. 
In the case of those items for which an average percentile expen- 
diture has been calculated, the diagrams reflect the numerical 
facts of this average. Where no average has been calculated 

» Throughout these explanations the year 1900 has reference to the 
data contained in the Bulletin 36 of the Department of Labor, published 
in September, 1901; the year 190 1, to Bulletin 42, published in Sep- 
tember, 1902. 

2 Throughout all the tables of frequency, any percentile figure must 
be read to mean from that figure to the next higher one. Thus 2 % really 
means a point between 2 % and 3 %; 3 %, a point between 3 % and 
4 %, etc. 



[\ 



FIG. 1. 




3 4 



as 11 



■JI2==i. 



22 



F I G. 2. 



Ln 



^ 



3 4 82 11 



18 



2 8 



83 



FIG. 8. 




U 



a) 



ru 



M 



F I G. 4. 



Zl 



n n 



2 5 ID 3.7 / 

Surfaces of Frequency — Percentile Expenditures 
Fig. I. Police Department, Police Courts, Jails, etc. Median, 8.8. 

(Heavy line) 1900, .(.DoUed.lin«l) 1901. 

Fig. 2. Police Department. Median, 8.2. 

Average of 1900 and 1901. 
Fig. 3. Fire Department. Median, 8.3. 

Average of 1900 and 1901. 
Fig. 4. Health Department. Median, 1.03. 

Average of 1900 and 1901. 
32 



E I a. 5. 




SI 



Fia 6. 




a 



ui 



I] 



(^ 9 



3$ 



46 



FIG. 7. 




6 S 



Fig. 5. 
Fig. 6. 
Fig. 7. 



Surfaces of Frequency — Percentile Expenditures 
Schools, 1900. Median, 23.6. 

Schools, 1901. Median, 24.96. 

Schools, average 1900 and 1901. Median, 24.3. 



33 



Fl G. 8. 




fl 







F I Q. 9. 



h 



nn n n n 



0.1 .7 ID 1.7 



44 




FIG. 10. 



1 S5 11 

Surfaces of Frequency — Percentile Expenditures 

Fig. 8. Libraries, Art Galleries, and Museums, 1901. Median, 1.01. 
Fig. 9. Parks and Gardens, 1900. Median, 1.04. 

Fig. 10. Municipal Lighting, 1900. Median, 5.5. 

34 



Some Fiscal Aspects of Public Education 35 

the frequencies of both years are presented, the heavy con- 
tinuous line representing the frequencies for the first year, and 
the broken line the frequencies for the second year. In the case 
of the expenditures for schools the three sets of frequencies 
are represented separately. The horizontal distance represents 
in every case the per cents., while the vertical distance represents 
the number of cases. 

These graphical representations enable one to comprehend 
at a glance some of the more significant characteristics of the 
tables of frequencies, which are often concealed from the un- 
accustomed observer in the distribution series of Table 4. 

VI. Measurement of Variability 

In their present distributed and graphically represented con- 
dition, the measures entering into the tables of frequency merely 
give us an index to the principal, gross facts, viz., the spread 
of the measures. That is, we know that, of the cities studied, 
some spend 3 %, some 4 %, some 5 %, and so on, until we find 
one city spending 18 % ^ of its total expenditures for the main- 
tenance of its police service (Table 4 (a)) . If the expenditures for 
the police department, police courts, jails, etc., are placed in a 
single amount, this variation is found to be from 4 % to 22 % 
of the gross total (Table 4 (6)). For schools, we find it to be 
from 6 % to 46 % of the gross total (Table 4 (e)). These facts, 
while perhaps interesting enough in themselves, give us but a 
partial insight into the true condition of affairs. As they now 
stand, they do not enable us to describe with any exactness the 
character of the different variabilities, nor to state any of the 
definite relations which may exist between the different items 
of expenditure. 

There are at least three methods of attaining some definite 
and comparable measures of the variability. 

Method of the Probable Error. — By the first method, the ex- 
treme cases, i.e., those very high and those very low, may be 
excluded. Excluding in this manner from our tables of fre- 
quency the low 25 % and high 25 % of the cases under each 

» It is evident that the figures in the column of average percentile 
expenditures are more reliable, and more nearly indicative of the real 
measures, than the percentile expenditures for any one year, hence wher- 
ever possible in these explanations the average figures have been used. 



36 Some Fiscal Aspects of Public Education 

item, there would remain a middle 50 %. It is evident that 
the limits of this middle 50 % of the cases give a truer 
measure of the variability of the group of cities in any single 
item of expenditure than the limits within which all the cases 
lie. This is particularly true with such items as schools, li- 
braries, health, and parks, in which a wide range of variability 
is exhibited. 

Actually performed, and calling the new limits + and — P. E. 
(Probable Error), the following table of results would be found: 

Table 4a 

Table of measures of variability of percentile expenditures for maintenance 

and operation. All cities in the United States above jo,ooo 

population. Fiscal years igoo and igoi 

50 % of the cases lie between 2 P. E. 

Police Department (average) 6 . 93 % and 9 . 82 % 1 . 89 

Police Department, Courts, Jails, etc. 

(1901) 7.43 

Fire Department (average) 6.72 

Municipal Lighting (1901) 4. 39 

Libraries, Museums, etc. (average) . . .66 

Health Department (average) 7 

Parks (1901) 54 

Schools (average) 19 . 65 

Interest on Debt (average) 8 . 84 

In other words, while the cities in 1901 exhibit a variability 
of 19 % (from 4 % to 23 %) in their expenditures for police de- 
partment, courts, jails, etc. (Table 4 (6)), one half of these cities 
lie within a variation of but 3.5 % (from 7.5 % to 11 %). Also 
while the average percentile expenditures for two years of 132 
cities for schools exhibit a variability of 40 % (Table 4 {e)), one 
half of these cities lie within a variation of but 11 % (from 19.65 
% to 30.58 %). Although, from the data at hand, it would be 
entirely correct to say that, among American cities having 
30,000 or more population, the expenditures for schools varied 
from 6 % to 46 % of the total expenditures for maintenance and 
operation, such a statement would be manifestly unfair as de- 
fining the essential characteristics of the group. 

Method of Deviation from Central Tendency. — The second 
method of measuring the variability of expenditures in any 
item is by means of the amount by which each member of the 
group of cities deviates from some central tendency, such as the 
average or the median. The median is the point above and 



11.22 


3.79 


9.70 


2.98 


6.72 


2.33 


1.40 


.74 


1.6 


.9 


1.90 


1.36 


30.58 


10.97 


19.15 


10.31 



Some Fiscal Aspects of Public Education 37 

below which 50 % of the cases lie. By reason of its lack of 
ambiguity and less likelihood of being influenced by extreme 
cases, the median is preferable to the average under conditions 
such as the present. 

Table 5 contains the medians, and the deviations from the 
medians, of the average percentile expenditures for 1900 and 
1 90 1, for the eight indicated items. The first line of the table 
contains the average median expenditure for the designated 
items. That is to say, one half of the cities spent more than 
8.20 % of their total expenditures for police service; one half 
of the cities spent less than 8.20 %. The average median ex- 
penditure for schools was 24.31 %; and so on. Opposite the 
number of each city is placed the amount by which the per- 
centile expenditure of that city for any particular item deviates, 
above or below the median percentile expenditure for that 
item. For example, city 22 had an average percentile ex- 
penditure for schools of .96 % below the average median per- 
centile expenditure of the entire group of cities. All deviations 
below the median are indicated by a minus sign. All devia- 
tions without the sign are to be interpreted as plus. 

Having thus obtained the individual measures of the de- 
viations, it is possible to combine these measures and reach cer- 
tain conclusions regarding the character of the deviations for 
the entire group. Such group measurements would be the 
average amount of the deviation, i.e., the sum of all the de- 
viations divided by the number of each; or the limits within 
which lie the deviations of one half of the cities from the cen- 
tral tendency of any item of expenditure ; or a more accurate 
measure yet of this group deviation, the square root of the aver- 
age of the squares of the deviations of the individual measures 
from their median — the so-called mean square deviation, or 
standard deviation. 

As these measures are concerned more directly with the 
methods of calculating the group relationships, an explanation 
of their meaning and importance will be reserved for the section 
on correlation. The main observation to be made here is the 
necessity of utilizing some definite measures of the amount of 
the deviation of the expenditure for any item from the central 
tendency of that expenditure before it is possible to generalize 
concerning the characteristics of the total number of cities. 



Table No. 5 
Medians, and deviations from medians, of percentile expenditures, for main- 
tenance and operation, of all cities in the United States, having a popu- 
lation of 30,000 and over. Average for fiscal years igoo and igoi 





4J 








.S 














E^- 


c 
<u 


E 


.s 


•a 

u 
as 
60 




•a 






u 


t.£ 


B 


u 
n! 


.60 




c 




'3 
"0 
6 


13 
u 




.§g§ 
"•« 


u 

ft 

s 


ft 

"(3 


.2" 

'S 

3 


•d 
c 

nl 
u 








•C E 
2 3 





d 


^ 


Oi 


(S 


s 


W 


s 


O, 


w 


^ 


;z 


Median 


8.20 


8.85 


8.27 


1.03 


5.52 


1.05 


24.31 


1.02 


Median 


1 


1.83 


2.20 


-3.64 


- .01 


-2.98 


.48 


- 7.25 


- .38 


1 


2 


9.73 


10.36 


-2.42 


* 


-1.86 


2,31 


10.02 


- .10 


2 


3 


6.89 


10.80 


-2.88 


.36 


.57 


1.45 


- 7.07 


.32 


3 


4 


9.89 


10.54 


.14 


.52 


.68 


.26 


-7.15 


- .58 


4 


5 


.14 


5.40 


-2.21 


- .16 


-1.85 


1.16 


-10.07 


.40 


5 


6 


3.72 


5.30 


-2.01 


.08 


- .77 


1.97 


- 7.30 


- .73 


6 


7 


.47 


1.98 


1.72 


.27 


- .26 


.16 


.63 


.67 


7 


8 


5.11 


4.86 


3.10 


- .27 


.35 


2.27 


- 4.85 


.65 


8 


9 


5.90 


7.61 


2.52 


.37 


-1.40 


1.70 


- 3.96 


- .24 


9 


10 


1.21 


2.54 


- .41 


- .35 


- .01 


- .37 


-6.56 


.24 


10 


11 


.37 


- .28 


.82 


.42 


- .33 


1.90 


- 9.76 


.66 


11 


12 


2.71 


-2.36 


-2.05 


.08 


- .45 


- .81 


-13.55 


- .81 


12 


13 


6.48 


6.13 


5.89 


.00 


-2.53 


1.74 


-14.00 


.51 


13 


14 


1.05 


1.13 


3.50 


.02 


.40 


.60 


- 3.54 


.67 


14 


15 


4.07 


9.12 


-3.74 


.24 


-1.16 


.22 


- 3.54 


- .87 


16 


16 


* 


1.58 


-1.15 


.55 


- .49 


- .94 


- 4.26 


- .18 


16 


17 


* 


2.39 


-2.28 


- .83 


-1.30 


- .82 


-11.86 


- .20 


17 


18 


1.62 


4.76 


.07 


- .74 


- .38 


.64 


- 6.12 


* 


18 


19 


- .84 


- .64 


2.86 


- .19 


- .34 


1.38 


1.01 


.41 


19 


20 


2.06 


1.10 


1.58 


- .44 


2.68 


.73 


- 4.66 


- .73 


20 


21 


1.28 


.78 


2.13 


- .21 


1.14 


3.00 


8.64 


1.18 


21 


22 


2.40 


2.89 


2.19 


1.52 


-2.07 


1.95 


- .96 


- .04 


22 


23 


- .57 


.33 


- .06 


- .63 


1.23 


1.32 


- 2.84 


- .39 


23 


24 


-2.37 


-2.56 


-1.22 


.02 


2.26 


- .12 


- 7.77 


- .91 


24 


25 


- .17 


- .17 


.02 


.41 


- .11 


2.63 


12.26 


.26 


25 


26 


1.21 


- .24 


- .79 


- .70 


- .50 


.97 


1.31 


- .30 


26 


27 


.57 


-1.22 


- .45 


- .18 


- .88 


.50 


.41 


.62 


27 


28 


1.21 


- .39 


-1.25 


.15 


-1.65 


- .45 


- 1.28 


- .44 


28 


29 


-2.21 


-2.86 


-1.55 


.19 


- .65 


- .50 


- 2.76 


.28 


29 


30 


-1.41 


-1.40 


.17 


.06 


1.63 


.58 


- 4.47 


.63 


30 


31 


5.35 


5.85 


1.56 


- .50 


.20 


.41 


2.16 


.02 


31 


32 


1.80 


1.44 


.63 


- .41 


1.21 


.99 


1.03 


.33 


32 


33 


.39 


- .26 


- .68 


.22 


.56 


- .89 


- 5.16 


- .04 


33 


34 


1.49 


1.97 


1.57 


- .10 


-1.69 


.02 


- 1.28 


.02 


34 


35 


-2.33 


-2.23 


- .13 


- .48 


- .10 


.31 


2.05 


.21 


35 


36 


.77 


.73 


.54 


- .13 


- .96 


3.10 


8.92 


.32 


36 


37 


* 


2.30 


1.33 


* 


- .25 


- .77 


- 8.66 


- .38 


37 


38 


- .35 


- .50 


- .83 


- .12 


.72 


- .44 


20.69 


.34 


38 


39 


1.75 


1.90 


.20 


.57 


1.05 


- .16 


.17 


.09 


39 


40 


2.89 


2.69 


1.58 


.00 


.12 


1.77 


- 2.93 


- .48 


40 


41 


* 


-3.02 


-4.08 


- .15 


-2.21 


- .08 


- 3.42 


- .18 


41 


42 


-2.94 


-3.15 


- .37 


- .58 


- .78 


.03 


1.14 


* 


42 


43 


* 


4.07 


2.08 


* 


1.25 


.73 


- 9.90 


- .47 


43 


44 


- .13 


.35 


3.35 


.40 


-3.29 


1.67 


4.46 


- .30 


44 


45 


.40 


1.29 


.02 


- .29 


- .15 


- .83 


8.89 


.05 


45 


46 


.13 


- .17 


- .88 


- .30 


-2.89 


.74 


-14.09 


- .65 


46 


47 


* 


2.42 


2.23 


.89 


.15 


* 


- 3.66 


- .56 


47 


48 


-1.26 


-1.32 


.02 


.09 


-3.08 


.09 


- 3.08 


.35 


48 


49 


.57 


.45 


.25 


- .18 


-1.37 


1.01 


1.02 


- .23 


49 


50 


.25 


- .40 


-1.98 


- .43 


4.06 


.85 


5.14 


- .45 


50 


51 


4.10 


3.98 


-2.70 


- .05 


1.40 


1.26 


3.19 


.03 


51 


52 


4.01 


7.29 


1.98 


- .43 


4.25 


- .87 


2.49 


- .84 


52 


63 


2.90 


2.66 


1.19 


- .21 


-2.12 


.67 


.14 


- .37 


53 


64 


.33 


.74 


- .02 


- .27 


1.78 


1.52 


- 1.11 


.65 


54 


55 


-1.82 


-2.97 


- .72 


- .12 


-1.37 


- .41 


- 5.35 


.45 


56 


66 


2.67 


3.14 


2.88 


.66 


3.14 


- .02 


14.94 


.96 


56 


67 


- .52 


-1.17 


-1.26 


3.35 


-1.25 


- .24 


- 2.24 


.45 


57 


58 


2.87 


2.22 


- .80 


1.84 


- .50 


1.03 


- 2.74 


.38 


58 


59 


-1.80 


-1.76 


2.03 


3.39 


1.21 


2.04 


14.39 


.31 


69 


60 


-2.73 


-3.38 


- .11 


- .48 


- .22 


.95 


4.50 


1.47 


60 


61 


* 


-3.00 


-2.45 


- .18 


- .34 


- .11 


2.38 


.40 


61 


62 


3.11 


2.86 


-1.80 


1.62 


2.40 


- .79 


- 4.37 


* 


62 


63 


5.38 


5.15 


1.70 


- .28 


-2.23 


- .48 


- 1.05 


.02 


63 


64 


.69 


.37 


1.87 


- .60 


- .31 


- .80 


6.27 


* 


64 


65 


-1.32 


-1.53 


5.29 


.64 


3.65 


- .19 


- 5.01 


- .18 


66 


66 


-1.87 


-2.16 


2.90 


.59 


4.06 


- .29 


.85 


- .02 


66 


67 


1.14 


2.78 


1.22 


- .03 


.58 


2.48 


5.74 


.63 


67 


68 


5 . .^4 


4. 57 


- .15 


.95 


- .84 


.25 


- n . 78 


- .93 


68 



* No data given in Tables 1 and 2. 
38 



Table No. 5 (Continued) 
Medians, and deviations from medians, of percentile expenditures, for main- 
tenance and operation, of all cities in the United States, having a popu- 
lation of JO, 000 and over. Average for fiscal years igoo and igoi 



'o 
o 
6 

2; 


4J 

c 

a 
t 

-a 
a. 


0) 

a| 
II 


E 

u 


c 

g 
u 

p. 

(U 

■a 

0) 


.S 
1 

'2 


r: 

(U 

-d 
u 

to 
c 

1 


o 


o 


3 

a 

■d 
a 

as 

Is 

2 


6 


69 


* 


* 


* 


* 


* 


* 


* 


* 


69 


70 


-3.24 


- .03 


-2.95 


- .34 


-1.67 


- .10 


- 7.68 


- .28 


70 


71 


* 


- .05 


- .45 


.97 


* 


1.23 


- 3.70 


* 


71 


72 


-4.45 


-3.68 


.80 


- .45 


-3.16 


.14 


- 1.70 


- .26 


72 


73 


-1.17 


-1.31 


3.58 


.37 


2.81 


- .22 


7.35 


.75 


73 


74 


1.75 


1.23 


-3.58 


* 


-1.00 


* 


- .62 


* 


74 


75 


1.27 


1.36 


1.71 


- .17 


5.11 


- .91 


14.94 


* 


75 


76 


.53 


.72 


-1.26 


1.46 


.60 


- .65 


.14 


- .68 


76 


77 


-1.10 


-1.75 


-3.36 


3.21 


2.17 


- .54 


10.19 


* 


77 


78 


-2.39 


-3.04 


- .49 


- .59 


- .84 


- .15 


- 5.66 


- .27 


78 


79 


1.35 


1.73 


-3.82 


1.39 


.40 


1.50 


- 6.11 


- .53 


79 


80 


- .84 


-1.43 


-2.48 


1.85 


-3.17 


.20 


-17.40 


- .83 


80 


81 


1.08 


1.56 


- .34 


- .36 


- .24 


- .48 


16.68 


- .57 


81 


82 


-1.97 


-2.37 


.94 


- .32 


-1.61 


- .46 


1.74 


- .42 


82 


83 


.32 


- .34 


6.35 


.08 


2.12 


1.82 


5.40 


1.08 


83 


84 


2.87 


3.07 


.40 


.65 


.73 


- .80 


11.01 


- .47 


84 


85 


* 


- .50 


1.37 


* 


-2.92 


- .68 


- 6.24 


* 


85 


86 


- .32 


.54 


- .88 


1.64 


-1.86 


* 


- 4.56 


* 


86 


87 


- .19 


- .05 


3.76 


- .64 


2.06 


- .40 


2.97 


.54 


87 


88 


- .02 


.50 


.92 


.88 


- .50 


- .44 


- 5.97 


* 


88 


89 


- .84 


- .78 


-1.29 


- .68 


- .43 


- .91 


10.24 


- .60 


89 


90 


-1.27 


-1.92 


-1.78 


- .39 


5.57 


* 


10.02 


* 


90 


91 


-4.10 


-4.23 


- .28 


- .70 


-1.17 


-1.02 


9.86 


.12 


91 


92 


-1.86 


-2.53 


.14 


.30 


- .95 


* 


- 3.11 


.35 


92 


93 


-1.02 


-1.22 


-2.12 


.53 


5.16 


- .22 


11.84 


- .62 


93 


94 


3.51 


3.83 


2.93 


.55 


- .52 


* 


- 6.56 


* 


94 


95 


-1.29 


-1.93 


-2.68 


* 


- .82 


- .81 


- 5.61 


- .10 


95 


96 


-1.68 


-2.03 


- .01 


- .29 


.61 


* 


8.84 


* 


96 


97 


- .56 


.09 


.83 


.06 


* 


* 


- .99 


.15 


97 


98 


* 


* 


* 


* 


* 


* 


* 


* 


98 


99 


3.55 


6.35 


1.09 


.58 


- .90 


- .33 


-11.31 


* 


99 


100 


* 


6.07 


5.83 


.76 


- .93 


* 


11.95 


* 


100 


101 


-1.42 


-1.17 


-1.69 


- .37 


3.26 


1.28 


3.71 


.06 


101 


102 


* 


* 


* 


* 


* 


* 


* 


* 


102 


103 


-4.29 


-4.62 


-2.74 


- .60 


* 


- .24 


- 7.11 


- .47 


103 


104 


* 


-3.28 


.24 


- .43 


.64 


.22 


- 3.02 


.68 


104 


105 


-1.63 


-1.37 


3.62 


.12 


-3.66 


- .28 


.51 


- .54 


105 


106 


- .26 


- .17 


2.11 


.42 


1.57 


- .51 


10.85 


.90 


106 


107 


- .42 


-1.06 


.49 


- .57 


1.17 


- .72 


3.05 


* 


107 


108 


- .44 


1.54 


2.08 


.31 


1.74 


.83 


4.11 


.64 


108 


109 


- .91 


-1.57 


2.53 


- .77 


1.00 


.31 


5.19 


.27 


109 


110 


-1.61 


-2.25 


-2.36 


1.78 


1.05 


.02 


- 3.72 


.25 


110 


111 


.03 


- .35 


-3.54 


- .55 


2.31 


* 


21.89 


* 


111 


112 


* 


- .70 


4.30 


.59 


3.17 


.29 


.79 


- .64 


112 


113 


* 


-3.81 


.43 


- .27 


2.73 


* 


14.01 


* 


113 


114 


- .63 


-1.28 


- .94 


.65 


- .71 


.93 


17.39 


* 


114 


115 


* 


.57 


1.63 


.14 


.28 


* 


6.33 


* 


115 


116 


.74 


1.13 


4.37 


- .46 


.81 


* 


4.54 


- .87 


116 


117 


-1.87 


-2.52 


-2.15 


1.35 


- .46 


.80 


- 2.13 


- .21 


117 


118 


1.63 


.87 


-2.57 


.31 


3.35 


.34 


11.44 


* 


118 


119 


1.81 


1.16 


-1.04 


- .11 


6.07 


- .87 


12.68 


* 


119 


120 


-3.10 


-3.25 


-2.56 


.86 


- .58 


- .31 


.69 


.61 


120 


121 


- .98 


- .94 


.24 


1.73 


-1.87 


.75 


9.43 


.57 


121 


122 


-1.96 


-2.61 


-2.89 


.76 


- .54 


- .63 


- 6.86 


.43 


122 


123 


-3.00 


-3.25 


-1.72 


.08 


-1.37 


- .74 


3.28 


- .43 


123 


124 


- .18 


- .66 


-5.85 


- .60 


1.06 


* 


1.26 


- .17 


124 


125 


* 


.06 


1.01 


- .38 


4.02 


* 


- 5.24 


* 


125 


126 


.76 


.67 


-1.31 


2.74 


2.40 


- .88 


- 1.77 


* 


126 


127 


-1.42 


-2.07 


-2.38 


- .40 


.66 


- .48 


- 2.28 


.57 


127 


128 


-2.84 


-2.96 


- .05 


.75 


-3.09 


* 


1.86 


- .21 


128 


129 


-2.67 


-2.75 


1.02 


- .39 


1.91 


- .80 


11.17 


1.00 


129 


130 


.25 


- .24 


-2.57 


- .23 


-3.75 


- .79 


- .05 


.39 


130 


131 


* 


-1.57 


1.39 


- .47 


1.35 


- .34 


8.22 


- .47 


131 


132 


3.48 


4.35 


1.72 


1.73 


-1.11 


* 


12.34 


1.36 


132 


133 


* 


1.86 


- .75 


1.58 


- .31 


* 


-15.47 


* 


133 


134 


* 


-2.56 


-1.70 


- .80 


3.75 


* 


1.64 


- .38 


134 


135 


* 


2.60 


3.96 


- .55 


.82 


.51 


- 7.88 


- .87 


135 



* No data given in Tables i and 2. 
39 



40 



Some Fiscal Aspects of Public Education 



Coefficient of Variability. — It is evident that the mere gross 
percentile figures do not permit us to say which one of the 
items under consideration tends to vary the most. Neither 
would a comparison of the limits within which 50 % of the 
cities lie give a valid standard. Thus it would be manifestly 
illogical to conclude, since the average percentile expenditures 
for schools vary from 6% to 46 % (Table 4(e)), a spread of 41 %, 
and since the average percentile expenditures for street lighting 
vary from 1% to 11% (Table 4(d)), a spread of 11%, that, 
therefore, the expenditures for schools are nearly four times 
(41:11) as variable as those for street lighting. In the same 
manner would the fallacy of measuring the relative variability 
of expenditures by ratio of the P. E.'s appear. By the reduction 
of all the variabilities to a common tmit of measurement, it is 
possible to place the expenditures for each item on a comparable 
basis as far as the quality of the variation is concerned. De- 
veloped according to the probably best formula^ these coefficients 
of variability are given in the fourth column of Table 6. It will 
be noticed that each item retains, in its tendency to vary, in 
each year, an almost identical position with reference to the 
other items. 

Table No. 6 

Table of medians, average deviations, standard deviations, and coefficients 
of variability. Percentile expenditures for maintenance and operation. 
Fiscal years igoo and igoi. All cities in United States above ^0,000 
population 





Median. 


Average 
Deviation. 


Standard 
Deviation. 


Coefficient of 
Variability. 




1900 


1901 


1900 


1901 


1900 


1901 1900 1901 


Police Department . . 

Police Department, 

Courts, Jails, etc.. 

Fire Department 

Health Department . 

Schools 

Libraries, etc 

Parks 


8.02 

8.82 
8.23 
.93 
23.60 
1.02 
1.04 
5.51 


8.28 

8.88 
8.46 
1.07 
24.96 
1.02 
1.04 
5.56 


2.17 

2.49 

1.99 

.56 

6.39 

.48 

.84 

1.69 


2.30 

2.37 

1.80 
.79 

6.30 
.44 
.80 

1.65 


2.96 

3.37 
2.45 

.91 
8.09 

.58 
1.16 
2.15 


2.59 .767 .799 

3.20 .839 .795 
2.28 .693 .619 
1.40: .583 .768 
7.56 1.32 1.06 

.55; .483 .442 
1.06! .82 .784 


Street Lighting 


2.10 


.719 .696 



Relationship of the Variabilities. — If the different sections of 
Table 5 were examined carefully, or even better, if the tables of 



• V=- 



rMedian 

pp. 98 to 102, especially p. 102 



See Thorndike, E. L., Mental and Social Measurements, 



Some Fiscal Aspects of Public Education 41 

the deviations of the percentile expenditures for schools from the 
median expenditure were compared, city by city,, with the 
deviations from the median expenditure in another item, as, 
for instance, libraries and museums, it would frequently be 
found that a plus deviation in one item would be accompanied 
by a plus deviation in the other item and, vice versa, a mmus 
deviation in one item would be accompanied by a minus 
deviation in the other. This quality of likeness would by no 
means always be found. But it frequently would. On the other 
hand, such a comparison with other items might reveal a de- 
gree of unlikeness; with still other items the relationships might 
seem to be in a state of neutrality or confusion. 

At this point, some statistical manipulation which would 
permit these positive, negative, or neutral relationships to be 
expressed in some significant manner would be of inestimable 
service. If there is a positive relationship between the per- 
centile expenditures for schools and the percentile expenditures 
for street lighting, or libraries, or parks, or any other of the 
items for which we have definite information, the knowledge of 
the fact would have practical as well as scientific value. Nega- 
tive or neutral relationships would likewise be of interest and 

value. . 

Through the utilization of the Pearson Coefhcient of Cor- 
relation it is possible to give a definite expression to these 
relationships. The application of and results derived from the 
use of the Pearson Coefficient will be developed and treated at 
length in Section VIII. 

VII. Causes of Variability 

There remains yet the open and legitimate question regard- 
ing the probable causes of the wide degree of variability ex- 
hibited by the percentile expenditures, for the various items 
enumerated. It is a veriest of commonplaces to repeat that 
cities like individuals, would be expected to vary greatly in the 
amount and character of their expenditures. These variations 
have always been accepted as a concomitant fact of the differing 
needs and personalities of cities. In the following analysis an 
effort has been made to indicate and bring together some of 
those causes which may act as possible influences in the production 



42 Some Fiscal Aspects of Public Education 

of variable expenditures — influences, too, which cannot be neg- 
lected in any consideration of public education in cities. 

The variability of percentile expenditures, which has been ob- 
served, may be due to any one of eight general causes, or to com- 
binations of these causes. These will now be taken up in the 
order of their supposed ascending influence upon the variability. 

Influence of Population. — In accordance with the ordinary 
current notion regarding municipal affairs, there would seem to 
be some validity in the contention that the size of the city would 
be a predominating influence in the variability of such factors of 
municipal expenditure as are here treated. It might be held, 
with some show of reason, not only that the large city would 
necessarily have a larger relative expenditure for maintenance 
and operation than the small city, but also that the number of 
its needs would be greater; and as the number of its avenues of 
expenditure increased, the resulting tendency would be a diminu- 
tion of the proportion of the public revenues available for each 
of the specified needs. 

If the data upon which this work is constructed are fairly 
reliable, a distribution of the percentile expenditures for the 
various items, according to population classes, would disclose 
the degree of variability obtaining within these selected groups of 
cities. These distributions have been made for three items and 
are presented in Tables 7 (a), 7 (6) and 7 (c). From these tables, 
which are merely examples of all the distributions, it is very 
evident that no positive statement of the cause of variability, 
as depending upon population alone, can be made. The ten- 
dency toward a somewhat smaller range of variability, exhibited 
by the groups of larger cities in the tables, may be due to the 
smaller size of their groups, as compared with the groups of 
smaller cities, especially Group IV. Very large cities and very 
small cities may differ a great deal as to the quality and range of 
municipal and fiscal activity. In the main, however, the essen- 
tial elements entering into the life of a city of 500,000 population 
differ but little from those of a city but one tenth as large. This 
particular point is an important one to keep in mind. Especially 
in educational administration is there a tendency to attempt to 
differentiate sharply between the conditions of the large and 
small city. In certain respects only is such a differentiation 
justifiable. The general conclusion appears to be, then, that 



Some Fiscal Aspects of Public Education 43 

Table No. 7 

Tables of frequency. Percentile expenditures for maintenance and opera- 
tion according to population groups.'^ Fiscal years igoo and igoi 

(a) 
Schools 
Group I II ni IV 



Per cent. 


1900 


1901 


1900 


1901 


1900 


1901 


1900 


1901 


6 














1 


1 


7 














1 





8 




















9 












1 








10 


1 








1 





1 


1 


11 


1 


1 


















12 












1 


1 





1 


13 


1 


2 












1 





14 


1 









1 


1 








15 


2 


1 


1 


1 








1 





16 


1 





1 


1 








1 


1 


17 


3 


2 


2 


2 


1 





4 


2 


18 


1 


3 


1 





4 





1 


3 


19 


1 


4 


1 








2 


1 


3 


20 


1 


1 





2 


3 


5 


3 


2 


21 


2 


2 


2 


2 


4 


2 


3 


4 


22 








1 


1 


3 


2 


2 


2 


23 


2 








2 


1 


4 


4 


1 


24 














5 


1 


1 


2 


25 


1 


1 


3 


2 


2 





2 


3 


26 





1 


2 


1 


1 


3 


1 


1 


27 











1 


1 


1 


2 


5 


28 








1 





2 


4 


3 


4 


29 

















3 


1 


2 


30 














1 


2 


2 


2 


31 


1 











2 


1 


1 


1 


32 







1 


1 


2 





1 


1 


33 







1 


1 


1 


2 


1 


2 


34 



















5 


4 


35 










1 





1 


4 


2 


36 




1 











1 


2 


2 


37 






1 





1 





1 


1 


38 















1 


1 


1 


39 












1 





2 


1 


40 












1 


1 








41 









1 












42 


















1 


43 


















1 


44 


















1 


45 















1 





46 

















1 


47 



















48 






1 












No. of cities, 


19 


19 


19 


19 


39 


39 


55 


59 


Median, 


17.9 


19.1 


25.2 


23.5 


24.0 


26.0 


26.9 


27.6 



1 The following basis for the selection of the groups of cities was used : 

Group I. — All cities above 200,000 population. 

Group II. — All cities from 100,000 to 200,000 population. 

Group III. — All cities from 50,000 to 100,000 population. 

Group IV. — All cities from 30,000 to 50,000 population. 



44 Some Fiscal Aspects of Public Education 

Table No. 7 {Continued) 

Tables of frequency. Percentile expenditures for maintenance and opera- 
tion according to population groups. Fiscal year of igoi 







(b) 










(c) 








Fire Department. 




Police Department, i 


Courts, Jails 


etc. 


Group I 


II 


III 


IV 


Group 


I 


II 


III 


IV 


Per cent. 










Per cent. 










2 








1 


4 








1 


3 











5 






3 


6 


4 


2 




2 


1 


6 


1 


3 


6 


11 


5 


2 




3 


7 


7 





2 


4 


10 


6 


3 


1 


3 


9 


8 


1 


6 


6 


10 


7 


2 


6 


8 


7 


9 


1 


2 


5 


7 


8 


3 


5 


8 


12 


10 


2 


4 


2 


4 


9 





4 


5 


8 


11 


3 


1 


7 


4 


10 


2 


3 


6 


4 


12 


1 





3 


2 


11 


3 




3 


5 


13 


4 





1 


1 


12 


1 




1 


2 


14 


1 





2 


1 


13 


1 







1 


15 





1 





2 


14 






1 


1 


16 


2 









15 








1 


17 


1 









No. of 


— 


— 


— 


— 


18 







1 




cities, 


19 


19 


40 


59 


19 


1 








Median, 


8.2 


8.2 


8.5 


8.5 


20 
21 

22 





1 


















No. of 


— 


— 


— 


— 












cities, 


19 


19 


40 


59 



Median, 13.1 8.8 9.55 



the size of the city apparently has but Httle influence upon the 
variability of the percentile expenditures for certain municipal 
activities. 

Influence of Geographical Location. — At the best, the arbi- 
trary segregation of cities into geographical groups for fiscal 
study must be unsatisfactory. The difficulties are much the 
same as with the division into population groups. Some eastern 
cities are markedly different from some central cities, and some 
central cities from some western cities. As groups of cities, 
eastern cities might not differ very much from central cities, nor 
central cities from western cities. The group of southern cities 
undoubtedly does reflect certain characteristics which have a 
tendency to place them in a class by themselves. This is notably 
the case as regards the support of education, where the situation 
is complicated by the traditional individualism and the difficult 
race problem. Table 8 gives the distribution of the percentile 
school expenditures according to arbitrarily made geographical 



Some Fiscal Aspects of Public Education 45 

Table No. 8 
Tables of frequency. Percentile expenditures for schools according to geo- 
graphic groups. All cities in the United States above 30,000 
population. Fiscal year igoi 1 
Group I 11 in IV V 



Per cent. 












6 






1 






7 






1 






8 













9 













10 






2 




1 


11 




1 










12 







1 







13 




1 


1 







14 




1 


1 







15 


1 


1 


2 







16 


1 








1 





17 


3 


2 


4 


1 





18 


3 


2 


1 





1 


19 





1 


1 


1 





20 


3 


1 


1 





2 


21 


6 


3 





2 





22 





3 


1 


1 


1 


23 


2 


2 





3 





24 


2 


5 











25 


2 


3 





2 


1 


26 


2 








2 





27 


1 








1 


1 


28 





1 





5 





29 











1 





30 





1 





1 


1 


31 











4 





32 





1 





2 


1 


33 





2 





1 





34 





2 


1 


1 


1 


35 










3 


1 


36 





2 










37 





1 







2 


38 













1 


39 


1 


1 




1 




40 









1 




41 













42 













43 













44 













45 




1 








46 













47 













48 


27 


1 








Total, 


39 


18 


34 


14 


Median, 


21.3 


24.3 


16.7 


28.6 


29.1 



1 The following is the basis for the selection of the groups : 

Group I. — Cities of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Connecticut, 

Massachusetts, and Rhode Island. 
Group II. — Cities of New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, 

West Virginia, Delaware, and District of Columbia. 
Group III. — Cities of all southern states, including Texas. 
Group IV. — Cities of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, 

Minnesota, Iowa, and Missouri. 
Group V. — Cities of all states west of Missouri River. 



46 Some Fiscal Aspects of Public Education 

groups. As a whole the table is a demonstration of the predica- 
tion of the small infitience of geographical location upon the ex- 
hibited variability of expenditures. The only features worth 
noticing in passing are (a), the limited variability for the cities 
of the New England states, and (b), the generally low percentile 
expenditures in the southern cities. When it is recalled that 
these latter cities are credited with spending for education the 
money received from state and county, which in a number of 
cases is all that is spent, this low percentage is significant. 

Influence of Municipal Environment. — The environment of a 
city as contrasted with its mere geographical location may be a 
factor of no mean influence in determining the quality and range 
of its expenditures. A thriving seaport, a mining community, 
or a large railroad centre, might require a much larger relative 
expenditure for police protection than a city developed as a 
residence district. Northern and southern cities might differ 
greatly in their respective expenditures for education merely on 
account of the item of fuel for school buildings. A city built in 
a congested manner would reasonably require a greater expendi- 
ture for fire protection than one of similar size, yet of much 
greater area. Proximity to natural sources of power (water and 
natural gas) might exert a decided influence in many items of 
municipal expenditure. The character of the natural drainage 
might easily serve as a deciding factor in the expenditure for 
health protection necessary in any city. These and many 
similar influences must be conceived as important factors in 
the discussion of causal relations of municipal fiscal policy. 

Influence of the Mode of Classification of Public Accounts and 
of Systems of Accounting. — The modes of classification of public 
accounts and of the systems of accounting pursued by the fiscal 
authorities of different cities are most important factors in 
determining the possible character of the variability, within the 
group of cities, of the expenditures for any item. They are, in a 
sense, secondary factors in that they may not exert directly any 
important influence upon the amount of the expenditures of a 
city, although it is possible for them to do so. They are, how- 
ever, the medium through which must be gained whatever exact 
knowledge we may have of the fiscal operations of the city. 
This is not the place to enter upon a technical discussion of the 
theory underlying a rational classification of municipal revenues 



Some Fiscal Aspects of Public Education 47 

and expenditures,^ or to lay stress upon the increased adminis- 
trative efficiency arising from some uniform system of municipal 
accounting. 2 It will be sufficient to indicate in a concrete man- 
ner the possible influence of the lack of uniformity in classifica- 
tion and accounting upon the data with which this study is 
concerned. 

The absence of any sharp distinction between "expendi- 
tures for construction and capital outlay" and "expenditures 
for maintenance and operation" might cause chance variations 
in the amounts charged for the maintenance and operation 
of particular departments. Between the itemized expenditures 
for maintenance and operation of a group of cities, in the 
absence of any uniform system, a certain amount of varia- 
bility would very likely be caused. Expenditures made in 
any particular direction and charged to a particular depart- 
ment in one city might, in another city, be charged to an 
entirely different department. For example, some one ex- 

1 Clow, F. R., A Comparative Study for the Adtninistration of City 
Finances in the United States with Special Reference to the Budget, Publi- 
cations of American Economic Association, Ser. 3, vol. 2, No. 4 (1901), 
pp. 667-914; Gardner, Henry B., Municipal Finance ^n the Twelfth 
Census, Publications of American Econom,ic Association, New Ser. 
(1899), vol. 2, pp. 418—465. Both of these studies contain interesting and 
valuable observations upon present fiscal practices of American cities. 

Circular of the Division of Wealth, Debt, and Taxation of the United 
States. Instructions to Clerks and Special Agents for the Collection of Sta- 
tistics of Municipal Finance. Bureau of the Census (July, 1904). 

2 The most influential movement in this particular has been in- 
augurated by the National Mimicipal League, through the appointment 
in 190 1 of a "Committee on Uniform Municipal Accounting and Statis- 
tics." Reports of this committee, made by its chairman, Dr. Edward 
M. Hartwell, are to be found in the Proceedings of the National Municipal 
League and form a valuable contribution to this important element of 
mimicipal efficiency and economy. The following reports of the com- 
mittee, and other papers bearing upon the topic, are especially pertinent : 

Hartwell, Edward M., Chairman, Report of the Com,mittee on Uniform 
Municipal Accounting. Proceedings National Municipal League, 1903 
and 1904. 

Powers, L. G., Uniform, Accounting in its Relation to Comparative 
Municipal Statistics. Proceedings of National Municipal League, 1904, 
pp. 230-241. 

Cleveland, F, A., What Constitutes Reasonable Uniformity in Municipal 
Accounts and Reports. Proceedings National Municipal League, 1904, 
pp. 203-215. 



48 Some Fiscal Aspects of Public Education 

penditure which in city A would be designated as an expense 
for police service might, in city B, be charged to the de- 
partment of public health, and in city C, to the street de- 
partment. The use of service transfers ^ and the duplication 
of accounts further tend to shrink or expand the expendi- 
tures of the departments in different cities. This tendency to 
the intermingling of classification and of accounts would cer- 
tainly, in the case of the definite comparison of two or any 
small number of cities, render the statistics derived from these 
classifications and accounts invalid for any exact conclusions. 
However, as this intermingling is purely a matter of chance, and 
as long as these "errors" of classification and accounting are 
not of a constant variety, they will, in the large group of cities 
under consideration, be rendered less potent in aifecting the re- 
sults. This does not, of course, mean that absolute or approxi- 
mate uniformity of conducting fiscal operations is not a most 
desirable and necessary aim to be attained for the purpose of 
comparative statistics. A chance error is not equal to no error at 
all; neither is it equivalent to a constant error. 

These elements, though, are not the only ones tending to 
complicate the nature of our data and to influence the variability 
of the itemized expenditures. In the original tables the ex- 
penditures for various municipal undertakings, such as water 
works, gas works, electric light works, docks and wharves, mar- 
kets, cemeteries, etc., are included in the total expenditures for 
maintenance and operation. ^ Now in reality these enterprises 
generally are made self-supporting, or nearly so, by the revenues 
derived from the sale of the commodities produced or the privi- 
leges granted; hence, to include the expenditures for these de- 
partments as constituent portions of the expenditures for the 
maintenance and operation of the municipality is, in a sense, an 
unscientific procedure. Inasmuch as 80 % of the cities have 
been reported as having expenditures of this kind, and inasmuch 
as, in general, the amounts concerned are small, when reduced 
to per cents, of the gross total, their influence is minimized. 

> Service transfers are transactions between two departments, offices, 
or accounts of a city in which one performs some service for another and 
receives pay or credit therefor. 

2 Excluded from the statistics for 1902 and 1903. See Sections X 
and XI, pp. 67 ff. 



Some Fiscal Aspects of Public Education 49 

The item "interest on debt" is a confusing one. In most 
American cities, with the constant increase of the bonded debt, 
it is becoming of more importance each year. The amount of 
this element causes its definite localization in the system of 
classification of municipal expenditures to be of prime signifi- 
cance. Even of more import is its differentiation into amounts 
chargeable to the various municipal activities. 

Economists and fiscal experts are not of one opinion regarding 
its exact position in the system of fiscal classification. However 
this may be, in this study the whole amount of interest paid on 
debt has been treated as properly belonging to the ordinary ex- 
penditures for maintenance and operation. 

As to differentiation, the problem assumes a more difficult 
aspect. A bonded debt is generally incurred for a definite pur- 
pose — water, streets, schools, etc. The interest on this debt then 
very properly belongs as a charge against the department or 
purpose for which the debt was created.^ Systems of municipal 
accounting have not as yet made provisions for such a logical 
division of payments; hence, ordinarily the interest payment is 
regarded as a separate item. For the most part, and in the 
majority of cities, bonded debt has been incurred through three 
principal branches of municipal activity — streets, water, and 
schools. In the present study, the only one of these entering 
into the conclusions is schools. To have included the interest on 
the school debt as a portion of the expenditures for the mainten- 
ance and operation of schools would have tended to increase the 
amount of these expenditures, and hence, also, probably to in- 
crease the size of the correlations developed between the ex- 
penditures for education and expenditures for other activities. 

Without doubt, some of the variability exhibited by the ex- 
penditures for education in the different cities is due to the in- 
clusion or exclusion of the amount of interest paid upon the 

> It is pertinent to note here that the report of the Committee of the 
National Educational Association on Uniform Financial Reports {Pro- 
ceedings National Educational Association, 1897, pp. 344-352) excludes 
the interest on debt as an item of current expenditure entering into the 
cost of education. The argument for this exclusion (p. 348) seems to 
be of a specious nature, economically considered. On the other hand, 
the schedules of the United States Commissioner of Education, prepared 
for the reporting of expenditures for public education in cities, include 
the item of interest on debt among current and incidental expenses. 



50 Some Fiscal Aspects of Public Education 

bonded debt for schools. The inclusion would, unless a careful 
discrimination had been exercised in collecting the statistics, 
have taken place most likely in the case of those cities whose 
public school corporations possess administrative and financial 
autonomy. The influence of this inclusion is a chance one and 
may temporarily be disregarded. 

Properly speaking, the entire gross amount of the expendi- 
tures for municipal maintenance and operation should also be 
differentiated into amounts chargeable to certain definite or 
special departments. If this were accomplished, there would be 
no "other" or "miscellaneous" expenditures, which too fre- 
quently merely acts as a reservoir for lassitude, incompetence, or 
carelessness in the conduct of financial operations.^ At least, 
the item could be made to serve as a restriction to over-classifica- 
tion and not act in the way it does now, as a hindrance to the 
obtaining of a clear notion of the actual cost of maintaining im- 
portant branches of the mimicipal governmental machinery. ^ 
What do we know, for example, concerning the cost of maintain- 
ing the various general administrative departments of cities, of 
the cost of the collection of taxes, etc.? In the present case 
there may be, in some instances concealed within the item of 
"other" expenditures, amounts properly belonging to definite 
departments. Any errors arising from such wrong inclusion are 
unavoidable ; but as they are of a purely chance nature their in- 
fluence upon the conclusions regarding the entire group will 
probably not be large. 

Influence of State Subsidies for Education. — That the amount 
of money received by cities from other jurisdictions — state or 
county — for the support of specified activities may exercise 
some influence upon the variability of expenditures in different 
cities has, in the past, been accepted without question. The 
exact character of this influence, whether positive, negative, or 
neutral, has not been determined in any conclusive manner. As 
this subsidizing is most general in the case of education, the 
extent of this influence may be considered of some moment in 

> See Table 9, in which are distributed the cities according to the 
percentile amount of undifferentiated expenditures. 

2 In the statistics for 1902 and 1903, subjected to study in Sections 
X. and XL, the item for " miscellaneous " and " other expenditures " has 
been practically eliminated. 



Some Fiscal Aspects of Public Education 51 

this investigation. To what degree is this plan of granting sub- 
sidies conducive to a corresponding proportional increase in the 
expenditure of funds derived from purely local sources ? 

Table No. 9 

Tables of frequency. Unclassified percentile expenditures for maintenance 

and operation. All cities in the United States above 30,000 

population. Fiscal years igoo and igoi 

Per cent. 1900 1901 

1 1 1 

2 2 

3 1 ? 

4 1 1 

5 ? 6 

6 1 6 

7 8 6 

8 5 10 

9 5 12 

10 15 18 

11 13 11 
i2 8 10 

13 5 9 

14 5 5 

15 8 4 

16 5 ^1 

17 7 9 

18 6 5 

19 7 1 

20 8 

21 1 \ 

22 I I 

23 2 3 

24 3 n 

25 

26 2 

27 

28 

29 1 9 



30 o 







81 1 ? 

32 1 1 

33 .2 R 

34 ^1 

35 ^ one case at 43 9 
one case at 48 ^ ^^^ case at 44 _ 

Total, 133 137 

Unfortunately, no reliable data exists relative to the ratio of 
state and local support of education in cities.^ Neither is such 

J What might be comprehensive and reliable sources of such data, 
viz., the reports of the United States Commissioner of Education, are 
most untrustworthy in this respect. 



52 Some Fiscal Aspects of Public Education 

information readily obtainable for any large number of cities. 
The whole question can best be solved by eliminating from the 
present consideration the possible positive or negative effect of 
the state subsidy. Consequently, all the expenditures for educa- 
tion within any city, irrespective of the sources of the revenues 
from which such expenditures are made, have been treated on 
the same plane. For in spite of other influences, which may be 
exercised by the state subsidy, from a purely fiscal standpoint, 
ever)'- city soon begins to regard the income from state or county 
in the same light as that derived from local sources. If the 
state subsidy be too large it may decrease the local feeling of 
financial responsibility to a point far below that necessary for the 
complete social efficiency of public education. If the state sub- 
sidy be inappreciable, or nothing at all, local responsibility may 
be stimulated to a very high degree. At least, such is the work- 
ing principle of the current state subsidies. At any rate, from 
a statistical point of view, the raising of the question here points 
to an unsolved problem in educational administration. The 
present day practices founded on the principle of the equaliza- 
tion of educational opportunity between the communities within 
any state may in reality be unjust and operate in a direction con- 
trary to that anticipated.^ 

Influence of Distribution of Functions. — The form in which 
the several governmental functions are distributed and con- 
trolled v/ill act as an important influence upon the variability of 
expenditures. Properly to describe this form necessitates replies 
to three questions. 

(a) How far does the state, or county, or other civic au- 
thority, assume direct responsibility for the support of specific 
functions? For example, courts, care of defective, delinquent, 
and criminal classes, public education, parks, water supply? In 
some states, the state or county bears all or part of the expense 
of the support of such activities in the cities; in others, the 
cities themselves must directly assume these expenditures. 

(b) How far do the citizens of any community, in an indi- 

> An investigation pointing to the truth of this statement has been 
conducted by Professor EUwood P. Cubberley, of Leland Stanford Junior 
University. See General taxation for education and the apportionment of 
school funds. Teachers College, Columbia University, Contributions to 
Education, No. 2. 



Some Fiscal Aspects of Public Education 53 

vidual capacity, pay for the performance of functions which 
would be assumed by the municipal government in another 
locality? For example, removal of garbage, sprinkling and 
lighting of streets, public education, public libraries and parks, 
police service, etc.? 

(c) How far have the cities in question been granted the 
authority or assumed the responsibility for the performance of 
those functions with which we are concerned ? This of course is 
the result of the process of subtracting from those activities, 
which might be considered as falling within the scope of municipal 
control, those whose support is assumed by the state or retained 
by the private individual. 

In any one to one comparisons of the expenditures of cities, 
the differentiation of function as between the municipality and 
other civil jurisdictions on the one hand, and between the mu- 
nicipality and private assumption on the other, must receive 
due consideration in the derivation of any valid conclusions. 

There is also a necessity in such a study as this to give weight 
to the influence of this distribution of function. Too much im- 
portance must not however be attached to this influence. What 
is being attempted here is some view of the character and rela- 
tionships of municipal fiscal activity. In just how far such 
character and relationships reflect administrative and civic 
efficiency is a somewhat different problem. 

Influence of Economic Wealth of Municipalities.^ — The wealth 
of any city may rightfully be supposed to be the largest factor in 
determining the amount of money devoted to public purposes. 
Other things being equal, the rich city has a proportionately 
greater potential source of income for public purposes than the 
poorer city, and thereby is enabled to extend and multiply its 
activities in a manner best calculated to satisfy its local needs. 
It is able to do much with comparative ease, while the poor city 
must make many sacrifices to accomplish even less. As has been 
indicated in an earlier section, the influence of the wealth of the 
community has been partially eliminated owing to the reduction 
to a percentile basis of the factors of determination. We are 

» See Harris, W. T., Some of the Conditions which Cause Variation in 
the Rate of School Expenditures in Different Localities, Proc. Dept. of 
Superintendence, National Educational Association, 1905, pp. 45-63, for 
some of the broader aspects of this particular topic. 



54 Some Fiscal Aspects of Public Education 

measuring according to a relative rather than an absolute stand- 
ard. 

Nevertheless, this element of superior resources is one which 
should enter into any complete discussion of the extent of the 
development of the various municipal activities. In a later sec- 
tion an attempt has been made to trace some connection between 
educational expenditures and the taxable wealth of the com- 
munity. 

Influence of Methods of Revenue and Expenditure Adminis- 
tration. — The influence of the revenue and expenditure methods 
upon the variability of expenditures is a complex one. The 
modes of taxation, the limitation by the states of the rate of 
taxation for general or special purposes, the isolation of special 
forms of revenue for special purposes (excise tax for schools), 
the exercise of more than one local tax authority over the same 
territorial jurisdiction (as is frequently the case with local school 
revenues) , are some of the causes on the side of revenue likely to 
produce a wide variation in the expenditures for any particular 
item. The control of expenditures, whether by some centralized 
body or by a series of more or less independent boards having 
fiscal authority over certain departments, presents another class 
of variability producing influences which are intimately bound 
up with the prevailing political and administrative systems. 

Influence of Municipal Personality and Ideals. — The pre- 
viously enumerated influences likely to produce, either acting 
singly or in combination, the observed variation in the percent- 
age of municipal expenditures devoted to definite purposes are, 
with the possible exception of the secondarily acting influence 
of methods of accounting, those largely without the direct and 
immediate control of cities themselves. A city does not deter- 
mine its location; its population and its wealth expand or 
shrink from forces rarely subject to definite direction ; the author- 
ity of the state, through administrative control or limitation of 
fiscal activity, is exercised in an arbitrary manner. Is there not 
some sphere in which the city acts in a self-determining manner 
as regards the particular aspects of its activity here being dis- 
cussed? Lacking somewhat perhaps in definiteness, it is put 
forth at this point as a predication, that the greatest influences 
upon the variability are the intangible personality and ideals of 
the city. In these two words may be concentrated the probable 



Some Fiscal Aspects of Public Education 55 

effects of all of the other influences. It cannot be maintained 
that, as is the location, population, kind of state supervision, 
method of taxation, or manner of administrative direction, so is 
the city. Neither, perhaps, could the contention be upheld 
that, as a city spends its money, so is the city. It might be said 
with greater chance of ready acceptance, that, as are the citizens 
so is the city. However, the happiness, contentment, civic 
capacity, and ethical standards of a community are not capable 
of measurement, beyond that by the use of varying subjective 
standards. It may be possible, though, to obtain, through such 
an objective standard as the character of its expenditures, some 
index of the personality and ideals of its people. 

A municipality is seldom economical in the expenditure of 
its revenues. It is far more often either parsimonious or ex- 
travagant. The recognition of the principle of expediency is 
much more frequent than that of real worth, or of final utility. 
The cost of public service is doubled because of the price often 
paid to mediocrity, or on account of the tribute levied under a 
system of political feudalism. And this price is paid by reason 
of civic inertia and impotence, or because the standards of 
good service are not known. The social income is spent ac- 
cording to standards that were or are, and not according to 
standards that ought to be. A city is not a machine, and any 
description of the forces that make for progress or otherwise 
must keep in mind that human beings make up, and human 
minds direct, municipal affairs and set up civic standards. The 
final aim of the study will be to gain some insight into the per- 
sonality and ideals of the American municipality as these are 
revealed to us through some of the aspects and relationships 
of its fiscal activity. For it is here perhaps that the character 
of this personality and of these ideals is best exhibited. 

Conclusion. — The phenomenon of variability is a constant 
one, if cities are subject to the law that governs all other social 
institutions. This variability may be due, as we have seen, to a 
large number of causes. ^ Before attempting to analyze the con- 
nection which may exist between the causes and the variabilities, 
some of the more important relationships of these variabilities 
will be pointed out. 

' There may be other minor causes leading to this variability. I 
have stated what seem to me to be the ones most likely to be influential. 



56 Some Fiscal Aspects of Public Education 

VIII. Relationships between Items of Expenditure 

Implications of the Variability. — In the previous discussion ^ 
concerning variability, the question was raised as to the probable 
relationships which might exist between the various items of 
expenditure. Do the cities that spend a larger proportion than 
is ordinary of their total expenditures for the maintenance and 
operation of public schools also spend a larger proportion than 
is ordinary for libraries, for street lighting, for police service, 
for protection of health, etc.? Or does a proportional large 
expenditure for education mean that this is accomplished at 
a sacrifice of the support of such other activities? In other 
words, does proportional generous support of education con- 
vey any information concerning the character of the munici- 
pality regarded as a whole ? If the existence of certain relation- 
ships can be demonstrated, then in general, a new basis of 
municipal worth and efficiency might be established. 

The Pearson Coefficient of Correlation. — It will be recalled that 
a brief mention was made in the preceding section ^ of the use of 
the Pearson Coefficient of Correlation as a method of measure- 
ment for determining the exact nature of these relationships. 
Divested of its mathematical terminology this coefficient is a 
measure of the general relation of a deviation of the amount of 
one item of expenditure in a city from the typical amount of that 
item (i. e., median, mode, or average), to the deviation exhibited 
by the same city of the amount of some other item of expenditure. 
A mere comparison of the variabilities of two items of expendi- 
ture within a group of cities might enable one to infer the exist- 
ence of a relationship, especially if the relationship were a strong 
one and the tables did not contain so many cases as to preclude 
ready inspection and comparison. No amount of such inspec- 
tion and one to one comparison, as has been suggested, would 
enable one to give a definite value to the relationship. 

The Pearson Coefficient ^ is the agency by which we attain 

» Pp. 40-41. 2 p 41 

3 The following references to the Pearson Coefficient of Correlation are 
given: Pearson, Karl, Grammar of Science, chapter on Correlation; 
Thomdike, E. L., Educational Psychology, pp. 26 Jf.; Thomdike, E. L., 
Theory of Mental and Social Measurements, pp. 121 ff.; Spearman, C, 
The Proof and Measurement of Association between Two Things, Ameri- 
can Journal of Psychology, XV., 1904, pp. 72-101. 



Some Fiscal Aspects of Public Education 57 

this expression of exactness. This Coefficient of Correlation is a 
figure so calculated from individual records as to give the degree 
of relationship between two items which will best account for all 
the separate cases in the group. In other words, it expresses the 
degree of relationship from which the actual cases might have 
arisen with least improbability. It has possible values from 
+ 100 %, through zero, to — 100 %. That is to say, in the present 
situation, a coefficient of correlation of 100 % between any two 
items of expenditure, such as schools and street lighting, would 
posit that the city which spent the largest proportion of its total 
expenditures for maintenance and operation of education, also 
spent the largest proportion for street lighting; and that, if the 
cities were ranked in order according to the proportion spent for 
education, and then in the order according to the proportion 
spent for street lighting, the two rankings woiild be identical; 
that the position of any city with reference to the others in one 
item of expenditure would be the same for the other item (both 
being reduced to terms of the variabilities of the percentile ex- 
penditures as units to allow comparison). On the contrary, 
a coefficient of — 100 per cent, between schools and street light- 
ing would mean that the city which spent the largest propor- 
tion for education spent the lowest proportion for street 
lighting; that the best city in our percentile ranking in educa- 
tion would be the lowest in the percentile ranking for street 
lighting. A coefficient of -f- 62 % would mean that (comparison 
being rendered fair here, as always, by reduction to the vari- 
abilities as units) any given station for one item would, on the 
whole, imply 62 hundredths of that station for the other. A 
coefficient of — 62 % would, of course, mean that any position 
above the central tendency for one item would, on the whole, 
mean a position below the central tendency for the other item 
equal to 62 hundredths of the amount the first was above the 
central tendency.^ 

Existing Relationships. — Table 10 presents the coefficients of 
correlation between certain items as they have been found to 
exist by use of the Pearson formula. The three columns give 
the amount of the coefficients for the two different years, and 
those derived from the average of these two years. 

» This explanation has been adapted largely from Thomdike's Edu- 
cational Psychology, p. 26. 



58 



Some Fiscal Aspects of Public Education 



Table No. 10 

Table of Pearson coefficients of correlation. Percentile expenditures for main- 
tenance and operation for the fiscal years igoo and igoi. All cities 
in the United States above jo,ooo population 



1900 



1901 



Average of 

1900 and 

1901 



Schools with — 

Police Department 

Police Department, Courts, etc 

Fire Department 

Health 

Libraries and Museums 

Parks 

Street Lighting 

Interest on Debt 

Other Expenditures 

Street Lighting Department with 
Police Department 

Fire Department with 
Police Department, Courts, etc 



+ .0256 

- . 0459 
+ .203 

- . 0243 
+ .279 
+ .031 
+ .354 



-.149 
-.15 
+ .065 
-.205 
+ .315 
+ .065 
+ .336 



-.069 
- . 0679 
+ .0969 
-.0145 
+ .293 
+ .0156 
+ .344 
-.482 
-.288 



+ .0685 
+ .139 



These particular items of expenditure were selected from the 
other items because there is, in all probability, less likelihood of 
variation and inequalities arising with them from confusion of 
accounts. While this element is not an entirely negligible quan- 
tity and perhaps never will be as long as there are differences in 
men and cities, it is assumed that the data collected and pre- 
sented in our original tables reflect the approximately true na- 
ture of these particular expenditures in American cities. 

Significance of Relationships. — Remembering the possibility 
of a Pearson coefficient varying in value from plus i.oo through 
zero to minus i.oo, the small size of the coefficients in Table lo ^ 
may appear to be without significance. That is, a coefficient of 
— .067 for police department, courts, jails, etc., may be without 
any readily ascertained meaning. It must, however, be kept in 
mind that a large percentile expenditure in any one direction 
leaves a correspondingly less amount to be distributed among 
the other activities. Hence, the plus correlations between 
schools and the four items indicated in Table 10, viz., fire, 



' Throughout this explanation and interpretation the coefficients 
referred to are always the average coefficients for the two years' ex- 
penditures. The average figure is self-evidently a more reliable one. 



Some Fiscal Aspects of Public Education 59 

libraries and museums, parks and street lighting, are demonstra- 
tions of certain tendencies of a significant nature. They indi- 
cate that there are some activities which bear a definite fiscal 
relation to each other, and these relationships undoubtedly re- 
flect certain more or less constant characteristics of municipal 
expenditures. 

The large positive correlation between the support accorded 
to public education and that accorded to libraries is what might 
be inferred. A generous attitude toward each is largely the re- 
sult of the existence of the same cultural forces operative in 
any community producing certain municipal ideals. 

In a like manner, the positive coefficient of correlation be- 
tween expenditures for schools and those for street lighting is 
indicative of similar forces at work. It is here recognized that 
the cost of street lighting may bear no direct proportional rela- 
tion to the amount of lighting done, inasmuch as the cost is 
subject to a variety of influences, such as compactness of the 
community, wise or unwise contracts with private lighting com- 
panies, the proximity of the city to sources of natural power, etc. 
Having in mind these restrictions, it is still permissible to con- 
clude that, in general, the city which is willing and able to give 
more than the ordinary (median) percentage of its total expen- 
ditures for public education, is also willing to give considerably 
more than the median amoiuit to the lighting of its streets. 

The large minus correlation between schools and interest 
on debt is significant and worthy of special attention by those 
who see danger in the marked tendency of American cities to 
increase their bonded obligations to the legal maximum. 

The remaining correlations with schools, while small, are in- 
dicative of relations of an interesting nature. Apparently there 
is an inclination of cities to appropriate somewhat less than the 
normal proportion of their expenditures for police and health 
protection and slightly more than the normal for fire protection 
and parks as their educational expenditures rise above the normal 
percentile amount. 

To be of the most value, the expenditures for each municipal 
department should be correlated with those for every other 
department. Especially should the relations between school 
expenditures and the expenditures for all other chief mtmicipal 
departments be evaluated. The relation which the cost of 



6o Some Fiscal Aspects of Public Education 

FIG. 11. 




4.0 S 



i.es 



1.16 



1.01 



1.82 



.80 



15J37 



SI. 63 



25.79 



80.87 



85.66 



4.0.89 



Explanation of Figure ii. — The diagram relates to the 
average percentile expenditures for 1900 and 1901, for the items 
indicated, in the 55 cities possessing a population of 30,000 to 
50,000, according to the census of 1900. The numbers on the 
diagram were derived as follows: The 55 cities were arranged 
in the order of their ascending percentile expenditures for public 
schools. Thus arranged, they were then divided into six 
groups, each of the first five groups having ten cities, and the 
sixth group having five cities. The averages of the percentile 
expenditure for two years for each of the indicated items were 
then calculated, and the following results obtained. 

Average Percentile Expenditures for 





Public 


Fire 


Street 


Health 




Schools 


Department 


Lighting 


Department 


Group 1 


15.27 


8.14 


4.02 (9)> 


1.63 (7)> 


2 


21.62 


7.20 


5.63 (9)> 


1.87 


" 3 


25.79 


7.76 


5.04 


1.15 


4 


30.87 


9.87 


6.39 


1.01 


" 5 


35.66 


8.50 


7.67 


1.32 


" 6 


40.89 


8.14 


6.85 


.80 



Hence, if the expenditures for public schools be represented, 
according to scale, on a horizontal line, the general relation of 
the expenditures for each of the other items may be shown by 
a broken line, drawn to a scale, in accordance with the direction 
of the deviation of expenditures for the specified group of cities. 

> Figures in parentheses indicate number of cities for which data were 
available. 



Some Fiscal Aspects of Public Education 6i 

general administration bears to that of educational administra- 
tion and supervision; the relation of the cost of the various 
elements that enter into the maintenance of streets ; these and 
many other salient and evident interdependencies must be deter- 
mined before we shall be able to reach any absolute conclusions 
regarding the proportion of the social income which should be 
devoted to this or that essential purpose. Once determined, 
these relations may afford certain standards which would remove 
the more important items of expenditure at least from the realm 
of mere expediency. The complete set of these correlations 
would give a clear insight into the fiscal and perhaps the socio- 
logical characteristics of the American city. Until we have, 
however, better means by which to differentiate more sharply 
between the various items of expenditure, such work will be 
impossible; yet its accomplishment is a very necessary comple- 
ment to that of establishing the very much needed standards 
for municipal and educational fiscal policies. 

In Figure No. ii (p. 60) an attempt has been made to give 
a diagrammatic representation of the character of the relation- 
ships expressed by the Pearson coefficients. 

IX. Variability and Correlation of Per Capita Ex- 
penditures 

It has been thought both advisable and necessary for any 
adequate treatment of the present phase of the fiscal position 
of education in cities to develop and point out relationships upon 
other than the basis of percentile expenditures. 

Data. — For the following portion of the study the same 
general data were utilized as in the preceding sections. The 
tables of per capita expenditures ^ for the maintenance and 
operation of certain municipal departments as published in the 
Bulletins of the Department of Labor for 1901 and 1902 were 
selected as the chief basis. 

Variability of Per Capita Expenditures. — An inspection of 

» These tables were derived by dividing the expenditures for the 
various items by the figure representing the population : according to the 
official census of 1900, for the expenditures given for 1900, and according 
to the estimated population of January i, 1902, for those of 1901. For 
a criticism of this last procedure, see Proceedings of National Municipal 
League, 1904, p. 253. 



62 Some Fiscal Aspects of Public Education 

Tables ii and 12 discloses the same wide variability in the per 
capita expenditures for the various items as was pointed out in 
the case of the percentile expenditures. The evidence afforded 
by this range of per capita variabilities is here adduced to lend 
force to the conclusions arrived at from the study of the vari- 
abilities of the percentile expenditures. 

The wide range of the total per capita expenditures as dis- 
played by Table ii(^) is an index of the extreme variability of 
municipal fiscal operations. That this variability is not pro- 
duced alone by the commonly supposed increased cost of main- 
tenance and operation as the cities increase in population and 
extent is confirmed by the evidence presented in Table 12. 

Table No. 11 
Tables of frequency. Per capita expenditures for maintenance and opera- 
tion. All cities in the United States above 30,000 population. 
Fiscal years igoo and igoi 



(a) 

Police Department, Police Courts, Jails, 
Workhouses, Reformatories, etc. 
Expenditure. Frequency. Frequency. 
1900 1901 


(0) 

Fire Department. 

Expenditure. Frequency. Frequency. 
1900 1901 


$ .30 


2 


$ .20 


1 1 


.40 


4 4 


.30 


3 3 


.50 


6 5 


.40 


5 4 


.60 


6 8 


.50 


4 5 


.70 


15 12 


.60 


8 11 


.80 


11 13 


.70 


11 11 


.90 


21 15 


.80 


16 13 


1.00 


8 20 


.90 


18 19 


1.10 


10 9 


1.00 


10 13 


1.20 


9 10 


1.10 


12 15 


1.30 


8 7 


1.20 


11 12 


1.40 


5 5 


1.30 


10 8 


1.50 


4 4 


1.40 


6 6 


1.60 


5 2 


1.50 


6 7 


1.70 


1 3 


1.60 


1 2 


1.80 


3 3 


1.70 


3 


1.90 


3 3 


1.80 


3 4 


2.00 


2 1 


1.90 


3 1 


2.10 


4 4 


2.00 





2.20 ; 


1 1 


2.10 


1 


2.30 


1 


2.20 


1 


2.40 
2.50 








Total, 132 136 


2.60 


1 






2.70 


1 






2.80 









2.90 


3 






3.00 









3.10 


1 






3.20 


2 






3.30 


1 






3.40 









3.50 


1 






Total, 


132 136 







Some Fiscal Aspects of Public Education 

Table No, 11 {Continued) 



63 



Tables of frequency. Per capita expenditures for maintenance and opera- 
tion. All cities in the United States above 30,000 population. 
Fiscal years igoo and igoi 





(.c) 




id) 






ie) 






Schools. 




Street Lighting. 




Total. 




Jxpenditure. 


Frequency. 


Expenditure. Frequency. 


Expenditure. 


Frequency. 




1900 


1901 


1900 


1901 




1900 


1901 


; .80 


1 





$ .10 2 





$ 4 


1 


1 


1.00 


1 


5 


.20 6 


5 


5 


3 


2 


1.20 


3 


2 


.30 3 


4 


6 


4 


4 


1.40 


3 


5 


.40 14 


21 


7 


6 


10 


1.60 


1 


1 


.50 17 


15 


8 


9 


15 


1.80 


5 


4 


.60 21 


19 


9 


15 


10 


2.00 


8 


9 


.70 20 


26 


10 


13 


22 


2.20 


6 


9 


.80 13 


10 


11 


14 


3 


2.40 


11 


10 


.90 13 


12 


12 


10 


12 


2.60 


17 


8 


1.00 6 


8 


13 


7 


13 


2.80 


9 


16 


1.10 4 


2 


14 


8 


10 


3.00 


9 


9 


1.20 2 





15 


9 


8 


3.20 


9 


14 


1.30 1 


1 


16 


8 


10 


3.40 


14 


14 


1.40 


1 


17 


5 


5 


3.60 


15 


4 


1.50 1 


1 


18 


6 


3 


3:80 


2 


5 


1.60 


1 


19 


3 





4.00 


6 


6 


1.70 2 





20 


2 





4.20 


2 


2 






21 


3 


4 


4.40 


3 


3 


Total, 125 


126 


22 


1 


1 


4.60 


2 


4 






23 


1 




4.80 





1 






24 







5.00 


1 









25 







5.20 


2 


1 






26 







6.40 





4 






27 







5.60 


1 








28 







5.80 











29 







6.00 


1 








30 


1 














31 


2 




Total, 


132 


136 






32 
33 
34 
35 





1 














Total, 132 


136 



The probable causes of the variability of the municipal ex- 
penditures, discussed at length in Section VII, will be recalled 
here. Whatever may be the extent of the influence of any, or 
all, of the causes, it cannot be assumed that the municipality 
spending $4 per year in the maintenance and operation of its 
various departments represents the degree of municipal efficiency 
of one devoting $36 for these purposes; nor that municipal 
economy is recognized equally in cities spending $5 and $25 per 
inhabitant in fulfilling their municipal functions. 



64 Some Fiscal Aspects of Public Education 

Table No. 12 

Tables of frequency. Total per capita expenditures for maintenance and 

operation according to population groups J All cities in the United 

States above 30,000 population. Fiscal years igoo and igoi 



Groups — 


I 






II 




III 


IV 




Frequency. 


Frequency. 


Frequency. 


Frequency. 




1900 


1901 


1900 


1901 


1900 


1901 


1900 1901 


J 4 








1 











1 


5 




















3 2 


6 








1 





1 





3 4 


7 











1 





2 


6 7 


8 








1 


2 


4 


5 


4 8 


9 








1 


1 


5 


4 


9 6 


10 











2 


7 


10 


6 10 


11 


2 





3 


1 


5 


2 


3 


12 


2 


4 


1 


2 


4 


3 


3 3 


13 


1 


1 


2 


4 


2 


5 


2 4 


14 


2 


6 


3 





3 


2 


1 


15 


3 


1 


2 


2 





1 


5 4 


16 


1 


3 








1 


1 


5 6 


17 


1 





1 





1 


4 


2 1 


18 


2 


2 








2 





2 1 


19 


2 








4 


1 








|20 


1 










1 








21 








2 




1 








22 








1 







1 





23 












1 







24 



















25 



















26 



















27 



















28 





1 










1 


29 



















30 
















1 


31 


2 
















32 


















33 


















34 













• 





35 















1 


36 




1 












Total, 


. 19 


19 


19 


19 


39 


40 


55 59 



Figures 12-16 represent diagrammatically the data assembled 
in the tables of frequency. 

Pearson Coefficients for Per Capita Relationships. — It is, how- 
ever, from the Pearson coefficients of correlation that we ob- 
tain a further notion of the relationships that exist between 
certain of the elements of municipal expenditures. The details 
of the explanation of the meaning of Table 13 need not be 
given here, as they are similar to those given in the general 

> See Table No. 8, p. 45, for grouping of cities. 



FIG. 12 




.so :io 1.04^ tso 



2£iO 



3.30 



c=L 




FiG.ia. 



I 



JZO 



,&0 



.so 



1J50 



iX-0 



2J30 



mn 



"U 



FIG.14. 




^ 



LOO Ji.OO a. 87 4jao 



&ao 



PIG. 15. 



Ln 



q: 



3E 



ZLr 



::3 



.80 .4M> eO U)0 1.60 

Surfaces of Frequency — Per Capita Expenditures, 1901 

Fig. 12. Police Department, Courts, Jails, etc. Median, $1.04. 

Fig 13. Fire Department. Median, 1.00. 

Fig. 14. Schools. Median, 2.97. 

Fig. 15. Street Lighting. Median, .69. 

65 



66 Some Fiscal Aspects of Public Education 



F I G.16. 



4.oa 



^ 



I 



ri 



S3.00 



Surfaces of Frequency — Per Capita Expenditures, 1901 

Fig. 16. Total for Municipal Maintenance and Operation. Median, 
$12.30. 

explanation of the meaning of the Pearson coefficient and in the 
explanation of the percentile correlation. They signify on the 
whole that the cities spending above the median amount per 
capita on public education will spend only such an amount above 
the central tendency as is indicated by the degree of relationship 
expressed by the coefficient. 

Table No. 13 

Table of Pearson coefficients of correlation. Per capita expenditures for 

maintenance and operation. All cittes in ths United States above 

jo,ooo population. Fiscal years igoo and igoi 

Schools with — 1900 1901 

Police Department, Courts, etc + . 232 + . 319 

Fire Department + .444 + . 389 

Street Lighting + . 333 . + . 361 

Assessed Valuation of Real and Personal Property . . + . 45 

The last correlation of those given in the preceding table, 
though somewhat uncertain in value, is indicative of one thing, 
namely, that while there is a decided tendency, on the part of 
those communities possessing a large amount of economic wealth 
subject to taxation, to spend a large per capita amoimt on 
education, these commtmities do not, in proportion to their in- 
creased wealth, spend a proportionately increased amount on 
education. Any accurate or valid conclusion regarding the 
influence of the amount of tax-producing property must include 
a consideration of the relation which the different sources of the 



Some Fiscal Aspects of Public Education 67 

municipal income bear to one another. This would be es- 
pecially necessary for all of those cities deriving any large 
amount of revenue from sources other than the general property 
tax. Real value of property as distinguished from assessed 
value would be a far better basis for a correlation figure which 
would give the relation between potential and actual support 
of the various municipal activities under a regime of general 
property taxation. The correlation is presented here not be- 
cause it stands for any definite condition of things, but primarily 
to indicate the possibility of representing in a concrete manner 
the relation between the potential and the assumed responsibility 
of cities for the development and support of public education. 

X. Supplementary Study of the Variability and Cor- 
relation OF Municipal Expenditures ^ 

Data of Municipal Expenditures for igo2 and 1903. — Under 
the title of Payments for General and Municipal Service Ex- 
penses by Departments, Offices, and Objects,^ the Bureau of 
the Census has presented the data of the expenditures for 
maintenance and operation of the various municipal depart- 
ments for the fiscal years 1902 and 1903, for the 163 cities of 
the United States possessing a population of 25,000 and over. 
For an extended exposition of the sources and character of this 
data reference is made to the introductory text, accompanying 
the statistics of cities. It is sufficient here to call attention to 
a few special features of the financial statistics which distinguish 
them from others of their kind, especially those presented in 
the reports of the Department of Labor, and which give to them 
a significant value for the present purpose. For the first time 
in the actual practice of gathering and presenting on a large 
scale municipal financial statistics, an effort has been made to 
differentiate the mtinicipal activities and to adopt a terminology 
in harmony with the theory and principles of modem public 
finance. As far as this study is concerned the most important 

> I desire at this time to make an acknowledgment of my deep ob- 
ligation to Mr. L. G. Powers, Chief Statistician, Bureau of the Census, 
for his assistance in rendering accessible to me, before the distribution 
of the official report, the data upon which this portion of the study is 
founded. 

2 Table 21, Bidlehn 20, Bvireau of the Censtis (1905), pp. 204-293. 



68 Some Fiscal Aspects of Public Education 

distinction made is that between governmental and commercial 
functions, a distinction long ago pointed out by writers upon 
public finance, yet one of somewhat tardy recognition by those en- 
gaged in gathering and presenting the financial statistics of cities. 

The term governmental functions . . . includes those 
municipal ftmctions which are as a rule performed for all 
citizens alike without any attempt to measure the amount of 
the benefit conferred or exact compensation therefor. Most 
of them are essential to the existence and development of 
government and to the performance of the governmental duty 
of protecting life and property and of maintaining a high stand- 
ard of social efficiency. Chief among such activities are those 
of general administration; the protection of life, health, and 
property; the care of the defective, delinquent, and dependent 
classes; the education of the young, and the performance of 
other duties of a similar nature ; the purchase of lands for 
municipal buildings, parks, and streets; the erection, equip- 
ment, and management of city halls and other buildings for 
general municipal uses; and the purchase or construction and 
operation of gas and electric light works for the exclusive pur- 
pose of lighting the streets and the city buildings, and of other 
structures and plants — such as printing offices, police and 
fire telephone systems, and bridges — for furnishing free of 
charge any commodit}^ or service required by the city in the 
common interest of all its citizens. In the same category are 
included the opening, grading, paving, and curbing of streets, 
and the construction of sewers, where such public improve- 
ments are made at public expense, without, in the opinion of 
the proper authorities, conferring upon particular individuals 
measurable special benefits, for which compensation is exacted 
by the city. To the same general group belong the making 
and paying of loans and the payment of interest thereon, when 
such loans are made in connection with the other activities and 
transactions before mentioned. 

The commercial functions of cities include those which 
create trade relations, industrial or semi-industrial, between 
the municipality and the general public, including other muni- 
cipalities or civil divisions. Among the transactions which 
arise from the exercise of such functions are those involving the 
loan of public money at interest, the use of public property 
for compensation, the sale of any commodity or article of 
commerce, or the performance of any work or service for pay. 
All these transactions involve the performance by the city of 
some service or the grant of some favor for special compensation, 
whether such service is undertaken or favor granted primarily 



Some Fiscal Aspects of Public Education 69 

for the service to be rendered or favor bestowed, or for the 
revenue to be secured. None of them is essential to the ex- 
istence and development of the government, although they may 
be made to contribute to its support. 

Commercial functions, together with commercial and semi- 
commercial transactions which arise from them, may be grouped 
into three subclasses, here designated as municipal investments, 
m^unicipal industries, and municipal services. 

(i) Under municipal investments are included all trans- 
actions of municipal governments connected with the purchase, 
sale, or possession of real property or securities held exclusively 
for investment purposes, and the loan of public money to 
individuals, corporations, or other civil divisions. Such trans- 
actions are of two classes: First, those of the sinking, invest- 
ment, and public -trust funds in which or through which the 
city invests money for the sole purpose of deriving interest, 
rent, or other income therefrom. Second, the transactions of 
a more temporary character by which the city receives interest 
on current cash deposits and on deferred payments of taxes 
and special assessments. 

(2) Municipal industries are those activities — such as muni- 
cipal waterworks, gas and electric light works, and street 
railways — which are organized as more or less complete depart- 
ments or offices of cities for the purpose of furnishing economic 
utilities to individual citizens on such terms as may be deter- 
mined by considerations of public policy. These activities are 
generally referred to by British writers as municipal trading. 
They are also frequently called quasi- private industries or en- 
terprises. As economists use the term, a quasi-private industry 
or enterprise of a municipality is one in which the purpose of 
realizing a net income or profit controls the method of manage- 
ment and determines the charges, as in a private business of 
similar character. In this strict sense of the term there are 
few, if any, qtiasi-private industries or enterprises in the United 
States, the greater number of municipal industries established in 
American cities having been called into existence principally 
or solely to promote the welfare of the citizens. Hence the 
Bureau of the Census uses the term municipal industries to 
include not merely those properly designated as quasi-private, 
as defined above, but all departments, offices, or activities or- 
ganized by cities to furnish utilities to their citizens for a com- 
pensation but without regard to the question of profit. 

(3) Municipal services include all activities and transactions, 
other than such as are included in (i) and (2), which are en- 
gaged in by cities or by any of their independent branches or 
departments in the interest of the general public, but which 
confer measurable special benefits — or what are arbitrarily so 
regarded — upon particular persons, natural or corporate, for 



7© Some Fiscal Aspects of Public Education 

which compensation is exacted. These services include the 
opening of streets, the construction of pavements, sidewalks, 
and sewers, the sprinkling of streets, and similar services, the 
payments for which are enforced by means of special assess- 
ments. To the same category belong also all services or special 
benefits rendered to private individuals or to other civil divi- 
sions under legal regulations, and paid for by fees, charges, 
rents, privilege rentals, and kindred remuneration.^ 

In the statistics presented by the bulletins of the Depart- 
ment of Labor these distinctions were not made, hence all ex- 
penditures on account of municipal investments, industries, 
and services have been included in the same class as those in- 
curred in the pursuit of the more generally recognized govern- 
mental functions. 2 

The second important character of these statistics for 1902 
and 1903 is the scheme of classification of the expenses, out- 
lays, and revenues of cities. ^ The so-called general expenses 
are those in the exercise of governmental ftmctions. In the 
tables the general expenses are divided into the following 
classes: (i) General Administration (including expenses for 
mayor and executive offices, legislative offices, law offices and 
accounts, finance offices and accounts, elections, public print- 
ing, etc.) ; (2) Public Safety (including expenses for courts, 
police department, militia and armories, fire department, de- 
partment of inspection, health department, etc.); (3) Public 
Charities and Corrections (including care of poor — in and out- 
side of institutions — children in institutions, lodging houses, 
miscellaneous charities, hospitals, prisons and reformatories) ; 
(4) Public Highways and Sanitation (including expenses of 
street paving, lighting, sprinkling and cleaning, refuse dis- 
posal, sewers, etc.) ; (5) Public Education (including schools 

» Bulletin 20, Bureau of the Census (1905), pp. 4-7. 

2 For instance, the city of New York is charged with an expenditure 
for the maintenance and operation of the water-works system for the 
year 1901 the sum of $3,000,990; for construction and other capital 
outlay on account of the water-works system, $3,450,780; yet the re- 
ceipts of the water department during 1901 were $8,050,900. It is 
manifestly inaccurate to place these expenditures on account of the 
water works system in the same category as those for public education. 

^ See Introductory Statement, Bulletin 20, Bureau of the Census, 
( 1905), for definitions and explanation. 



Some Fiscal Aspects of Public Education 71 

and libraries); (6) Public Recreation (including expenses for 
parks, gardens, baths, public celebrations and entertainments) ; 
(7) Other General Expenditures; (8) Interest on Municipal 
Obligations. While it is not the purpose here to contest the 
economic or statistical validity of the method of classification 
followed in the presentation of these statistics by the Census 
Bureau, and there are certain points open to criticism, the 
above description of their general nature has been inserted here 
primarily to direct attention to their increased usefulness for 
comparative purposes over those previously gathered by the 
Department of Labor, inasmuch as they reflect more accur- 
ately than any former statistics the fiscal activity of American 
cities. 

Selection of Cities for Study. — In this portion of the study it 
was deemed more expedient to make a somewhat narrower 
selection of cities than that followed previously. To this end 
the group of cities having a population of from 25,000 to 50,000 
was taken. This selection was broad enough to give a repre- 
sentative group, inasmuch as of the 163 cities of the United 
States having in 1902 a population of 25,000 and over, 78, or 
a trifle less than 50 % of them, fell within the group chosen for 
study. At the same time this selection produced perhaps a 
somewhat greater homogeneity of conditions affecting muni- 
cipal expenditures than that of the group of cities previously 
studied. 

Preliminary Arrangement of Data. — By reason of the system 
of distributive grouping of expenditures employed by the 
Census Bureau, it was thought advisable for the present purpose 
to combine under a fairly small number of representative and 
comparable headings the payments recorded for general and 
municipal service expenses. Without interfering with the 
mode of differentiation of these payments as presented in the 
tables, the total payments for general and municipal service 
expenses were divided into seventeen classes, as follows: 

1. Expenses for General Administration. Including ex- 
penses for all executive and legislative offices, law offices and 
accoimts, finance offices and accounts, statistical and mis- 
cellaneous general offices, city hall, and elections. 

2. Expenses for Courts. 

3. Expenses for Police Department. Including expenses 



TABLE 

Showing percentages of total payments for general and municipal service 

years igo2 and igoj. Cities between 



Cities. -"sm . QiJ . iJjj '^^j 

2'H i2 <uc .2 Qc ^c 

4)*-' Q o*' v;i .S*-' !!>►" 

O o ew S fe K 

1 Schenectady. N. Y 11.54 .67 11.87 9.22 140 

2 Youngstown, Ohio 8.21 .05 13.41 9.92 2.56 

3 Holyoke, Mass 10.32 .13 7.18 .001 10.66 2.25 

4 Fort Wayne, Ind 6.83 .28 9.34 15.77 2.11 

5 Akron, Ohio 6.64 .13 8.05 .09 17.00 1.04 

6 Saginaw, Mich 9.24 .67 8.54 7.27 .57 

7 Tacoma, Wash 6.45 .25 6.51 8.73 .82 

8 Covington, Ky 11.28 1.17 10.25 9.10 1.72 

9 Lancaster, Pa 7.77 1.08 7.69 .72 

10 Dallas, Tex 7.66 .49 9.90 11.02 .18 

11 Lincoln, Nebr 8.08 .35 4.69 8.71 .82 

12 Brockton, Mass 9.37 7.44 .32 9.20 1.59 

13 Pawtucket, R. 1 8.86 .07 8.10 6.81 .63 

14 Birmingham, Ala 7.52 .69 12.32 .07 13.45 1.97 

15 Little Rock, Ark 12.08 .90 16.78 15.05 1.96 

16 Spokane, Wash 7.96 .42 5.35 10.27 1.18 

17 Altoona, Pa 8.93 5.36 9.01 .83 

18 Augusta, Ga 

19 Binghamton, N. Y 8.69 1.19 7.62 6.79 1.28 

20 Mobile, Ala 

21 South Bend, Ind 7.94 .32 9.49 13.88 .29 

22 Wheeling, W. Va 8.17 .12 11.22 13.47 1.47 

23 Springfield, Ohio 7.88 .65 7.57 8.99 2.22 

24 Johnstown, Pa 6.10 8.85 5.89 1.53 

25 Haverhill, Mass 6.29 6.98 .19 9.98 .97 

26 Topeka, Kan 7.52 .37 6.76 11.52 2.23 

27 Terre Haute, Ind 6.37 .27 8.84 19.43 3.33 

28 Allentown, Pa 7.09 6.00 9.61 2.10 

29 McKeesport, Pa 9.90 11.18 10.30 3.34 

30 Dubuque, Iowa 8.43 .01 8.20 10.08 .61 

31 Butte, Mont 9.15 .51 13.73 12.48 1.26 

32 Davenport, Iowa 6.60 .36 7.34 13.52 .87 

33 Quincy, 111 5.93 .37 8.03 15.55 .36 

34 Salem, Mass 7.18 8.62 .79 7.57 3.61 

35 Elmira, N. Y 11.35 1.21 8.18 12.90 1.92 

36 Maiden, Mass 5.09 5.94 .11 5.68 2.11 

37 Bayonne, N. J 9.46 1.49 13.13 .11 2,99 .90 

38 Superior, Wis 13.53 .41 6.88 18.37 2.98 

39 York, Pa 6.53 8.65 9.85 1.05 

40 Newton, Mass 7.67 7.73 .05 5.14 .87 

41 East St. Louis, 111 8.82 1.13 8.72 9.98 .87 

42 Springfield, 111 8.55 11.75 15.48 .85 

43 Chester, Pa 9.24 9.30 7.10 5.22 

44 Chelsea, Mass 5.78 7.92 .06 6.94 1.69 

45 Fitchburg, Mass 6.37 8.31 .07 8.26 1.48 

46 Knoxville, Tenn 8.10 8.07 12.38 4.33 

47 Rockford, 111 5.32 .26 7.00 12.07 .67 

48 Sioux Citv, Iowa 8.08 .33 6.80 7.38 .84 

49 Montgomery, Ala 6.05 .42 13.07 8.10 3.05 

50 Taunton, Mass 6.90 .19 8.71 .19 6.22 1.90 

51 Newcastle, Pa 8.09 .08 6.75 10.75 .77 

52 Passaic, N. J 8.96 1.35 6.11 .10 8.29 1.36 

53 Atlantic City, N. J 7.96 .82 11.58 .01 14.25 1.67 

54 Canton, Ohio 5.88 8.25 11.19 1.44 

55 Jacksonville, Fla 

56 Galveston, Tex 8.54 .26 9.78 12.15 1.52 

57 Auburn, N. Y 9.38 1.15 7.01 10.52 .92 

58 Racine, Wis 6.24 1.03 4.13 14.14 1.19 

59 South Omaha, Neb 12.16 .89 7.12 9.52 1.21 

60 Joplin, Mo 8.84 .60 9.89 13.85 .92 

61 Joliet, 111 6.92 10.29 9.49 1.98 

62 Chattanooga, Tenn 7.83 .57 12.19 15.72 3.02 

63 Woonsocket R. I 6.76 .06 8.24 8.35 1.79 

64 Sacramento, Cal 8.50 .85 8.90 9.66 1.12 

65 La Crosse, Wis 10.45 6.91 13.39 .86 

66 Oshkosh, Wis 9.88 .50 5.52 15.67 1.69 

67 Newport, Ky 8.86 .26 8.53 5.26 2.56 

68 Williamsport, Pa 9.42 4.97 12.48 1.13 

69 Pueblo, Col 11.02 .20 8.00 6.83 2.29 

70 Council Bluffs, Iowa 6.17 .77 5.96 16.73 .12 

71 New Britain, Conn 5.46 .82 6.23 10.28 3.51 

72 Cedar Rapids, Iowa 6.45 1.10 6.68 8.97 2.27 

73 Lexington, Kv 15.66 1.01 12.03 .02 9.53 1.80 

74 Bay City, Mich 14.55 .72 8.92 10.68 .24 

75 Fort Worth, Tex 7.15 .30 7.62 8.78 .53 

76 Easton, Pa 7.40 6.35 9.12 .40 

77 Gloucester, Mass 11.37 7.88 .20 9.53 1.83 

78 Jackson, Mich 9.03 .95 8.16 13.32 .91 

' For explanations concerning the derivation of this table, see p. 74. 



No. 14 » 

expenses devoted to each of the itemized purposes. Average for the fiscal 
2^,000 and £o,ooo population 





g.2 


bo 


^ M 








i 






i 






■go 




c6 S 

§3 


■u 


1 


:2" 


"3 

1-B 


"is 

ID 
C 


o 






S 


(J 


CLi 


s 


(1( 


w 


J 


Ph 


O 


o 


w 






4.21 


4.83 


7.85 


10.65 


21.70 


.63 


.24 


.84 


14.28 


.03 


1 


.35 


2.64 


3.86 


5.51 


6.86 


37.05 


1.02 


.47 




8.13 




2 




7.82 


7.02 


3.90 


4.39 


26.66 


1.36 


1.23 




14.. 32 


3.36 


3 


.33 


.05 


4.89 


8.28 


6.00 


33.02 


1.35 


3.06 




8.83 




4 


06 


3.30 


7.79 


8.08 


1.48 


37.05 


1.73 


.60 




6.89 




5 




3.23 


14.37 


3.93 


3.62 


36.05 


1.07 


.32 




12.05 




6 




.24 


6.63 




1.33 


28.50 


.98 


2.01 


1.92 


35.70 




7 




3.10 


4.44 


6.41 


6.11 


24.70 


1.20 


.03 




20.37 


.08 


8 




.54 


12.26 


13.95 


5.97 


32.32 




.13 




8.64 


.09 


9 




3.85 


12.18 


5.50 


3.63 


22.80 


.81 


.74 


.29 


20.85 




10 




.10 


3.26 


4.06 


2.81 


40.80 


1.46 


.02 




24.77 


.08 


11 




8.69 


9.98 


4.53 


5.28 


25.06 


1.66 


.40 


1.24 


12.81 


2.62 


12 


.28 


2.94 


9.25 


5.61 


4.27 


23.75 


1.33 


.47 




25.06 


2.61 


13 


.08 


1.94 


10.96 


3.60 


4.14 


13.72 


.04 


.63 




28.57 


.31 


14 




3.88 


9.03 


2.27 


1.71 


30.30 




1.21 




3.48 


1.18 


15 




1.71 


8.48 


1.74 


1.77 


29.65 


.48 


1.60 


3.60 


25.83 




16 


.84 




8.28 


5.09 


2.95 


38.40 








20.25 


.02 


17 


No data for schools. 


















18 


.30 


13.35 


9.30 


9.12 


2.79 


31.90 


.001 


1.03 




6.73 




19 


No data for schools. 


















20 


.31 




7.61 


7.35 


5.22 


32.30 


1.13 


2.15 


.48 


11.65 


.05 


21 




1.68 


4.88 


7.84 


6.12 


33.67 


1.71 






9.15 


.58 


22 


.05 


2.81 


4.00 


12.43 


7.98 


31.90 


1.38 


1.96 




10.23 




23 


.20 


4.71 


11.85 


6.44 


.001 


47.05 




.55 




6.87 




24 


.05 


13.62 


10.40 


6.61 


2.31 


25.76 


2.24 


1.71 


.07 


12.50 


.27 


25 




.56 


9.86 


3.72 


1.60 


41.76 


1.22 


.61 




12.36 




26 


.16 


.51 


2.69 


7.71 


5.59 


39.35 


.73 


.49 




4.41 




27 


.45 


.10 


8.19 


7.45 


3.39 


42.88 




.08 




12.60 




28 


.30 


1.20 


5.96 


6.23 


3.79 


35.43 


.94 






11.22 




29 






8.09 


7.22 


4.56 


29.98 


1.33 


.45 




21.02 




30 


.02 


.84 


8.71 


4.08 


3.55 


36.35 


2.79 


.05 




6.20 


.34 


31 


.18 




9.42 


8.16 


7.79 


37.10 


.95 


3.22 




4.51 




32 




1.96 


4.79 


7.13 


4.20 


29.56 


1.52 


2.69 




18.05 




33 


.45 


17.65 


5.86 


7.68 


3.66 


25.22 


2.33 


2.33 




6.97 




34 


.02 


3.95 


9.95 


8.77 


2.37 


25.75 


.51 


1.72 


.02 


11.33 




35 




6.26 


9.33 


4.71 


3.63 


27.80 


2.29 


.42 


14.72 


11.26 


.61 


36 




.87 


6.43 


7.34 


2.14 


32.77 


.87 


.40 




21.07 




37 




1.79 


9.87 


3.65 


1.30 


36.45 


1.40 






3.42 




38 


.06 


.70 


9.19 


9.03 


7.59 


37.55 


.12 


.79 




8.84 




39 




3.74 


10.74 


5.12 


4.55 


21.58 


1.55 


.65 


9.43 


20.69 


.57 


40 






13.91 


4.04 


2.03 


33.75 


1.00 


.05 




15.66 




41 


.70 


1.13 


3.68 


7.29 


3.70 


28.11 


.93 


3.34 


1.57 


12.85 


.01 


42 




4.45 


3.75 


8.16 


3.44 


34.92 




.80 




13.75 




43 


.33 


9.98 


7.02 


5.30 


4.37 


24.03 


.92 


.65 


13.98 


9.60 


1.31 


44 




11.79 


11.35 


6.82 


3.07 


26.28 


1.59 


.82 


.32 


13.35 


.02 


45 




3.59 


6.39 


8.37 


3.52 


19.75 








26.54 




46 




.73 


6.88 


9.10 


5.85 


40.70 


3.43 


.26 




7.68 




47 




.02 


8.36 


4.10 


6.62 


30.01 


.68 


.61 




26.12 




48 




2.10 


7.78 


5.41 


3.43 


12.87 


.30 


.79 




34.26 


2.43 


49 


.35 


9.52 


11.23 


3.09 


2.36 


25.75 


1.66 


.71 


.30 


17.86 


3.13 


50 




6.97 


7.95 


1.17 


3.67 


47.25 




.04 




7.60 




51 


.15 


3.86 


6.90 


6.82 


3.98 


37.77 


1.50 


1.77 


1.31 


9.76 




52 


.22 


4.46 


5.20 


6.74 


13.30 


16.76 


.54 


.33 


1.13 


16.16 




53 


.32 


1.19 


3.53 


8.69 


6.92 


35.79 


.90 


1.33 


.12 


14.79 




54 


No data for schools. 


















56 




8.85 


5.69 


1.77 


7.64 


20.25 


.31 


.30 




22.95 




66 




7.96 


8.42 


9.27 


4.54 


29.50 


.62 


.04 




7.49 


3.22 


57 




4.17 


13.27 


5.28 


.21 


39.20 


3.03 


.03 




8.00 




58 




1.67 


4.62 


6.06 


.18 


40.17 


.08 


.17 




16.31 




59 




.74 


10.30 




.18 


44.50 


1.71 


.01 


1.60 


6.95 




60 


.80 


.79 


7.12 


7.47 


6.63 


38.42 


1.91 


2.00 




6.17 




61 


.18 


7.52 


3.90 


6.70 


5.19 


17.90 


.16 


2.03 


.17 


16.85 




62 




5.75 


10.09 


5.91 


3.68 


20.57 


.24 


.09 


3.15 


22.27 


2.99 


63 


.21 


.36 


12.60 


8.05 


8.39 


35.30 


2.46 


1.20 




2.33 




64 


.06 


.06 


5.23 


5.79 


3.17 


39.27 


.65 


.31 


6.59 


7.48 




65 




3.74 


12.93 


5.62 


1.56 


33.57 


2.26 


.78 


.06 


6.35 




66 


.09 


3.54 


6.09 


6.94 


5.22 


26.04 


1.44 


.06 




35.42 




67 




8.09 


6.24 


7.56 


2.25 


35.94 




.88 




10.80 




68 




.46 


11.50 


4.04 


1.61 


33.27 


.80 


3.81 


.15 


12.52 


3.44 


69 


.26 


.14 


5.07 


4.72 


2.27 


42.82 


1.60 


2.30 




11.12 




70 






6.30 


6.19 


6.04 


38.26 




.94 




15.90 


.06 


71 




.01 


13.65 


6.53 


3.57 


38.45 


1.90 


1.84 


.45 


8.16 




72 




8.64 


5.38 


7.82 


2.60 


22.30 


.49 


.06 




12.65 


.01 


73 




.29 


9.46 




4.80 


33.61 


1.05 


.57 




16.18 




74 


.16 


1.01 


10.36 


1.03 


.76 


18.45 


.89 


.33 




37.15 


5.41 


75 






10.36 


.39 


2.60 


50.87 


1.15 


.07 




11.25 




76 


.18 


13.38 


13.39 


3.80 


.91 


22.50 




.40 




13.78 




77 


.03 


6.10 


12.85 


6.52 


4.79 


27.60 


1.49 


.50 




7.49 


.80 


78 



73 



74 Some Fiscal Aspects of Public Education 

for police, department of inspection (other than health), and 
pounds. 

4. Expenses for Militia. 

5. Expenses for Fire Department. 

6. Expenses for Health Department. 

7. Expenses for Miscellaneous Public Safety. Not included 
under 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. 

8. Expenses for Charities and Corrections. Including ex- 
penses for poor in, and out, of institutions, children in, and out, 
of institutions, miscellaneous charities; expenses for hospitals, 
insane, prisons and reformatories. 

9. Expenses for Public Highways. Including general man- 
agement and engineering expenses, expenses for street paving, 
sidewalks, bridges, snow removal and street sprinkling. 

10. Expenses for Street Lighting. 

11. Expenses for Public Sanitation. Including expenses 
for street cleaning, refuse disposal, sewers, and sewage disposal. 

12. Expenses for Public Education. 

13. Expenses for Libraries, Art Galleries, and Museums. 

14. Expenses for Public Recreation. Including expenses 
for parks and gardens, baths and bathing beaches, celebrations 
and entertainments. 

15. Miscellaneous General Expenses. 

16. Expenses for Interest on Municipal Obligations. In- 
cluding only net corporate payments, which equal gross interest 
payments made to public, less the included accrued interest 
receipts from public. 

17. Expenses for Service Transfers. 

Transformation of Gross Itemized Expenditures to a Per- 
centile Basis. — As in the former case, the first operation was to 
transform the gross itemized expenditures to a percentile basis. 
This was accomplished, though not without much tedious arith- 
metical labor, for the group of 75 ^ cities for the fiscal year 1902 
and the fiscal year 1903. The percentile expenditures thus ob- 
tained were then averaged for the two years, item for item. 
These average percentile amounts are contained in Table 14. 

« Three cities necessarily omitted from the total number of cities — 78 
— on account of the absence of data. 



Some Fiscal Aspects of Public Education 



75 



XI. Supplementary Study of the Variability and Cor- 
relation OF Municipal Expenditures — (Cont.) 

As with Tables i and 2, a cursory examination of the percentile 
amounts in Table 14 reveals a very wide range of expenses in 
the identical municipal departments of the different cities. This 
variability is perhaps all the more noteworthy when it is recalled 
that the percentile amounts are for cities within a very narrow 
population range, and is confirmatory of the previous argument 
concerning the relation between variability and population. ^ 

Table No. 15 
Tables of frequency. Average percentile payments for general and municipal 

service expenses. All cities between 25,000 and §0,000 popidation. 
Fiscal years igo2 and ipoj 



&H 





CL, 


fe 


CL, 


Below 1 


1 


6 



20 


1 










1 


4 


8 


10 


2 






1 


1 


2 


1 


12 


4 


3 









6 


3 


7 


17 


11 


4 




3 





7 


4 


8 


10 


5 


5 


6 


5 


4 


6 


5 


11 


7 


2 


6 


16 


12 


5 


9 


6 


13 


8 


2 


7 


14 


12 


5 


7 


7 


13 


4 


3 


8 


17 


21 


9 


7 


8 


8 


1 


4 


9 


10 


6 


15 


11 


9 


4 





2 


10 


2 


3 


8 


7 


10 





1 





11 


5 


5 


3 


4 


11 








1 


12 


2 


3 


6 


5 


12 


1 








13 


1 


4 


7 


4 


13 


1 


1 


3 


14 


1 





2 


1 


14 









15 


1 





6 




15 









16 





1 


1 




16 









17 







1 




17 






1 


18 







1 




18 








19 







1 




19 









Total, 75 75 75 75 72 75 68 

Tables of Frequency. — The data of Table 1 5 present the tables 
of frequency for each of the items of expenditure enumerated in 
Table 14, excepting courts, militia, miscellaneous public safety, 
general and service transfers. Expenses under these headings were 
given for but few of the cities, hence rendering useless for com- 
parative purposes the presentation of the forms of distribution. 
These tables of frequency are to be interpreted in the same man- 
ner as the similar tables in the preceding portion of the study. ^ 
1 See p. 42. 2 See p. 31 ; also note 2 of p. 31. 



76 



Some Fiscal Aspects of Public Education 



Tables of frequency, 
service expenses. 



Table No. 15 {Continued) 

Average percentile payments for general and municipal 
All cities between 25,000 and 50,000 population. 
Fiscal years igo2 and 1903 



u 





Below . 1 


3 


.1 


3 
ft, 

13 




<u 




"S 


12 


1 


.1 


2 


.1 


2 


.1 


2 


2 


1 


13 


1 


.2 


1 


.2 


2 


.2 


2 


3 


2 


14 





.3 


2 


.3 


5 


.3 


1 


4 


2 


15 





.4 


2 


.4 


8 


.4 


1 


5 





16 


1 


.5 


3 


.5 


3 


.5 


2 


6 


8 


17 


1 


.6 


3 


.6 


6 


.6 


3 


7 


5 


18 


1 


.7 


1 


.7 


5 


.7 


2 


8 


6 


19 


1 


.8 


4 


.8 


3 


.8 


9 


9 


3 


20 


2 


.9 


6 


.9 


1 


.9 


5 


10 


3 


21 


2 


1.0 


4 


1.0 


1 


1.0 


2 


11 


5 


22 


3 


1.1 


2 


1.1 





1.1 


4 


12 


8 


23 


1 


1.2 


2 


1.2 


3 


1.2 


3 


13 


3 


24 


2 


1.3 


5 


1.3 


1 


1.3 


1 


14 


3 


25 


5 


1.4 


4 


1.4 





1.4 


4 


15 


4 


26 


3 


1.5 


5 


1.5 





1.5 


3 


16 


2 


27 


2 


1.6 


2 


1.6 


1 


1.6 


3 


17 


1 


28 


2 


1.7 


3 


1.7 


3 


1.7 


2 


18 


1 


29 


4 


1.8 





1.8 


1 


1.8 


2 


19 





30 


2 


1.9 


2 


1.9 


1 


1.9 


5 


20 


4 


31 


2 


2.0 





2.0 


3 


2.0 





21 


2 


32 


3 


2.1 





2.1 


1 


2.1 


3 


22 


2 


33 


6 


2.2 


3 


2.2 





2.2 


5 


23 





34 


1 


2.3 


1 


2.3 


2 


2.3 





24 


1 


35 


4 


2.4 


1 


2.4 





2.4 





25 


4 


36 


3 


2.5 





2.5 





2.5 


2 


26 


1 


37 


5 


2.6 





2.6 


1 


2.6 





27 





38 


4 


2.7 


1 


2.7 





2.7 





28 


1 


39 


3 


2.8 





2.8 





2.8 





29 





40 


3 


2.9 





2.9 





2.9 


1 


30 





41 


1 


3.0 


1 


3.0 


1 


3.0 


2 


31 





42 


2 


3.1 





3.1 





3.1 





32 





43 





3.2 





3.2 


1 


3.2 





33 





44 


1 


3.3 





3.3 


1 


3.3 


2 


34 


1 


45 





3.4 


1 


3.4 





3.4 





35 


1 


46 









3.5 





3.5 


1 


36 





47 


2 






3.6 





3.6 


1 


37 


1 


48 









3.7 













49 









3.8 


1 


4.3 


1 






50 


1 










5.2 


1 







64 



70 



75 



75 



Total, 75 

Figures 17 to 28, pp. 77-80, represent diagrammatically the 
form of the distribution of the percentile expenses for each of 
the items indicated in Table 15. 



1_ 



FIG. 17 



ao8 



11 



16 



piG.ia 



Ltlt-i 



__1 

8.16 tS 



16 



PIG. la 



6 



I 
9.88 



10 



ao 



Surfaces of Frequency — Percentile Payments for General""and 
Municipal Service Expenses. Average for Fiscal Years 1902 
AND 1903. Seventy-five Cities between 25,000 and 50,000 
Population. 

Fig. 17. General Administration. Median, 8.08. 
Fig. 18. Police Department. Median, 8.16. 

Fig. 19. Fire Department. Median, 9.98. 

77 



FIG.PJ 



^ I I 1 

4 6.43 ID 13 



FIG. SI. 



M 



8-19 



14 



FIG. 22. 






.1 



3.67 



S 



13 



Surfaces of Frequency — Percentile Payments for General and 
Municipal Service Expenses. Average for Fiscal Years 1902 
and 1903. Seventy-five Cities between 25,000 and 50,000 
Population, 



Fig. 20. Street Lighting. 
Fig. 21. Public Highways. 
Fig. 22. Public Sanitation. 



Median, 6.43. 
Median, 8.19. 
Median, 3.67. 



78 



FIG. 23. 




.5 1.14 



fl 



F I G.25. 



M 



2 



II 



.61 



n nn n 



zx> 



sm 



Surfaces of Frequency — Percentile Payments for General and 
Municipal Service Expenses. Average for Fiscal Years 1902 
AND 1903. Seventy-five Cities between 25,000 and 50,000 
Population. 



Fig. 23. Schools. 
Fig. 24. Libraries, etc. 
Fig. 25. Public Recreation. 



Median, 32.3. 
Median, 1.14. 
Median, .61. 



79 



r I QL2€L 




n 



n n (T 



&« 



F IG.S7. 




JZL 



n 



JZ) 



s.os 



18 



17 



Ul 




FlQi2B. 



nn nn 



is.e 



37 



Surfaces of Frequency — Percentile Payments for General and 
Municipal Service Expenses. Average for Fiscal'^Years; 1902 
AND 1903. Seventy-five Cities between 25,000 and 50,000 
Population. 



Fig. 26. Health Department. Median, 1.4. 

Fig. 27. Charities and Corrections. Median, 3.02. 

Fig. 28. Interest on Debt. Median, 12.5. 

So 



Some Fiscal Aspects of Public Education 8i 

Measurement of Variability; Probable Error. — Recalling the 
discussion in Section VI regarding the methods of determining 
the character of the variability exhibited by the different items, 
the following table will be self-explanatory: 

Table No. 16 

Table of measures of variability of percentile payments for general and 

municipal service expenses. Seventy-five cittes between 2§,ooo and 

§0,000 population. Average of fiscal years igoz and igoj 

Fifty percent of the cases lie between 2 p. e. 

General Administration 6 . 76 % and 9 . 24 % 2 . 48 % 

Police Department 6.98 " 9.49 . 2.51 

Fire Department 8.71 " 12.99 4.28 

Health Department .87 "1.98 1.11 

Charities and Corrections .79 "5.75 4.99 

Public Highways 6.00 " 10.30 4.30 

Street Lighting 4.10 " 7.71 3.61 

Public Sanitation 2.37 " 5.22 1.85 

Schools 25.75 " 37.10 11.35 

Libraries .73 " 1 . 55 .77 

Public Recreation .29 " 1 . 20 .91 

Interest on Debt 8.13 " 15.99 5.86 

Remembering the differences in the data used in deriving 
the percentile basis of Table i6 and of Table 4 a, and keeping in 
mind the difference in the grouping of the cities concerned, the 
two sets of P. E. are scarcely comparable. Each set of data, 
however, serves as an index of the wide degree of variability 
which exists in municipal expenses. 

Measurement of Variability — Deviation from Central Ten- 
dency. — As in the case of the statistics for 1900 and 1901, the 
variability of each item of expense has been measured by means 
of the amount by which each member of the group of cities 
deviates from the median of the group. The individual devia- 
tions, plus and minus, are reproduced in Table 17. From these 
individual measures it is possible to determine the character of 
the group variability in each item of expense in several ways. 
First, the average amount by which each city varies from the 
central tendency — in this case the median — of any item would 
give the average deviation, or A. D. Second, a more accurate 
statement of the preceding, viz., the square root of the average 
of the squares of the deviations from the median of any item 
of expense would give the so-called standard deviation for the 
entire group of cities. The average and standard deviations 
are presented in Table 18 for each of the different items of 
expense. 



Table No. 17 

Medians, and deviations from medians, of percentile payments for general and municipal 

service expenses of cities in the United States having a population of 2^,000- 

§0,000. Average for fiscal years igo2 and igoj 



^ 


d 
1 2 


0^ 


i. 

cd 


u 

0, 

a . 


•0 



J: 
X 




3 

s 









a 



>. 


"0 
d 


"HI 

c S 

S 


Oh 


to +J 

Q 


■3^ 

HI 


a) 

St 



■Mi 

a, 




3-2 





•ego 

sit: 


Oh 


ll 

c 




6 
2 


Me- 


























Me- 


dian 


8.08 


8.16 


9.98 


1.40 


3.02 


8.19 


6.43 


3.67 


32.30 


1.14 


.61 


12.50 


dian 


1 


3.46 


3.71 


- .76 


.00 


1.19 


-3.36 


1.34 


6.98 


-10.60 


- .51 


- .37 


1.78 


1 


2 


.13 


5.25 


- .06 


1.16 


- .38 


-4.33 


- .92 


3.19 


4.75 


- .12 


- .14 


- 4.37 


2 


3 


2.24 


- .98 


.68 


.85 


4.80 


-1.17 


-2.53 


.72 


- 5.64 


.22 


.62 


1.82 


3 


4 


-1.25 


1.18 


5.79 


.71 


- 2.97 


-3.30 


1.85 


2.33 


.72 


.21 


2.45 


- 3.67 


4 


5 


-1.44 


- .11 


7.02 


- .36 


.07 


- .40 


1.65 


-2.19 


4.75 


.59 


- .01 


- 5.61 


5 


6 


1.16 


.38 


-2.71 


- .87 


.21 


6.18 


-2.50 


- .05 


3.75 


- .07 


- .29 


- .45 


6 


7 


-1.63 


-1.65 


-1.25 


- .58 


- 2.78 


-1.56 


* 


-2.34 


- 3.80 


- .16 


1.40 


23.20 


7 


8 


3.20 


2.09 


- .88 


.32 


.08 


-3.73 


- .02 


2.44 


- 7.60 


.06 


- .58 


7.87 


8 


9 


- .31 


1.92 


-2.29 


- .68 


- 2.58 


4.07 


6.47 


2.30 


.02 


* 


- .48 


- 3.86 


9 


10 


- .42 


1.74 


1.04 


-1.22 


.83 


4.09 


- .93 


- .04 


- 9.50 


- .33 


.13 


8.35 


10 


11 


.00 


-3.47 


-1.28 


- .58 


-2.92 


-4.93 


-2.37 


- .37 


8.50 


.32 


- .59 


12.27 


11 


12 


1.29 


- .72 


- .78 


.19 


5.67 


1.79 


-1.90 


1.61 


-7.24 


.52 


- .21 


.31 


12 


13 


.78 


- .06 


-3.17 


- .77 


- .08 


1.06 


- .82 


.60 


- 8.55 


.19 


- .14 


12.56 


13 


14 


- .56 


4.16 


3.47 


.57 


- 1.08 


2.77 


-2.83 


.47 


-18.58 


-1.10 


.02 


16.07 


14 


15 


4.00 


8.62 


5.07 


.56 


.86 


.84 


-4.16 


-1.96 


- 2.00 


* 


.60 


- 9.02 


15 


16 


- .12 


-2.81 


.29 


- .22 


- 1.31 


.29 


-4.69 


-1.90 


- 2.55 


- .66 


.99 


13.33 


16 


17 


.85 


-2.80 


- .97 


- .57 


* 


.09 


-1.34 


- .72 


6.10 


* 


* 


7.75 


17 


18 


* 


* 


* 


* 


* 


* 


* 


* 


* 


* 


* 


* 


18 


19 


.61 


- .54 


-3.19 


- .12 


10.33 


1.11 


2.69 


- .88 


- .40 


-1.13 


.42 


- 1.77 


19 


20 


* 


* 


* 


* 


* 


* 


* 


* 


* 


* 


* 


* 


20 


21 


- .14 


1.31 


3.90 


-1.11 


* 


- .58 


.92 


1.55 


.00 


- .01 


1.54 


- .85 


21 


22 


.09 


3.06 


3.49 


.07 


- 1.34 


-3.31 


1.41 


2.45 


1.37 


.57 


* 


- 3.35 


22 


23 


- .20 


- .59 


- .99 


.82 


- .21 


-4.19 


6.00 


4.31 


- .40 


.24 


1.35 


- 2.27 


23 


24 


-1.98 


.69 


-4.09 


.13 


1.69 


2.66 


.01 


-3.66 


14.75 


* 


- .06 


- 5.63 


24 


25 


-1.79 


-1.18 


.00 


- .43 


10.60 


2.21 


.18 


-1.36 


- 6.54 


1.10 


1.10 


.00 


25 


26 


- .56 


-1.40 


1.54 


.83 


- 2.46 


1.67 


-2.71 


-2.07 


9.46 


.08 


.00 


- .14 


26 


27 


-1.71 


.68 


9.45 


1.93 


- 2.51 


-5.50 


1.28 


1.92 


7.05 


- .41 


- .12 


- 8.09 


27 


28 


- .99 


-2.16 


- .37 


.70 


- 2.92 


.00 


1.02 


- .28 


10.58 


* 


- .53 


.10 


28 


29 


1.82 


3.02 


.32 


1.94 


- 1.82 


-2.23 


- .20 


.12 


3.13 


- .20 


* 


- 1.28 


29 


30 


.35 


.04 


.10 


- .79 


* 


- .10 


.79 


.89 


- 2.32 


.19 


- .16 


8.52 


30 


31 


1.07 


5.59 


2.50 


- .14 


- 2.18 


.62 


-2.35 


- .12 


4.05 


1.65 


- .56 ■ 


- 6.30 


31 


32 


-1.48 


- .82 


3.54 


- .53 


* 


1.23 


1.73 


4.12 


4.80 


- .19 


2.61 ■ 


- 7.99 


32 


33 


-2.15 


- .13 


5.57 


-1.04 


- 1.06 


-3.40 


.70 


.53 


- 2.74 


.38 


2.08 


5.55 


33 


34 


- .88 


.46 


-2.41 


2.21 


14.63 


-2.33 


1.25 


- .01 


- 7.08 


1.19 


1.72 - 


- 5.53 


34 


35 


3.27 


.02 


2.92 


.52 


.93 


1.76 


2.34 


-1.30 


- 6.55 


- .63 


1.11 - 


-1.17 


35 


36 


-2.99 


-2.22 


-4.30 


.71 


3.24 


1.14 - 


-1.72 


- .04 ■ 


- 4.50 


1.15 ■ 


- .19 - 


- 1.24 


36 


37 


1.38 


4.97 ■ 


-6.99 ■ 


- .50 ■ 


- 2.15 


-1.76 


.91 


-1.53 


.47 


- .27 • 


- .21 


8.57 


37 


38 


5.45 


-1.28 


8.39 


1.58 ■ 


- 1.23 


1.78 ■ 


-2.78 • 


-2.07 


4.15 


.26 


* 


- 9.08 


38 


39 


-1.55 


.49 


- .13 ■ 


- .35 - 


- 2.32 


1.00 


2.60 


3.92 


5.25 


-1.02 


.18 - 


-3.46 


39 


40 


- .41 


- .43 • 


-4.84 ■ 


- .53 


.72 


2.55 - 


-1.31 


.88 - 


-10.72 


.41 


.04 


8.19 


40 


41 


.74 


.56 


.00 ■ 


- .53 


* 


5.72 - 


-2.39 ■ 


-1.64 


1.45 


- .14 - 


- .56 


3.15 


41 


42 


.47 


3.59 


5.50 - 


- .55 - 


- 1.89 


-4.51 


.86 


.03 - 


- 4.19 


- .21 


2.72 


.35 


42 


43 


1.16 


1.14 • 


-2.88 


3.82 


1.43 


-4.44 


1.73 - 


- .23 


2.62 


* 


.19 


1.25 


43 


44 


-2.30 - 


- .24 ■ 


-3.04 


.29 


6.96 


-1.17 - 


-1.13 


.70 - 


- 8.27 


- 22 


.04 - 


- 2.90 


44 


45 


-1.71 


.15 - 


-1.72 


.08 


8.77 


3.16 


.39 - 


- .60 - 


- 6.02 


^45 


.21 


.85 


45 


46 


.02 ■ 


- .09 


2.40 


2.93 


.57 


-1.80 


1.94 - 


- .15 - 


-12.55 


* 


* 


13.04 


46 


47 


-2.76 - 


-1.16 


2.09 - 


- .73 - 


- 2.29 


-1.31 


2.67 


2.18 


8.40 


2.29 - 


- .35 - 


- 4.82 


47 


48 


.00 - 


-1.36 - 


-2.60 - 


- .56 - 


- 3.00 


.17 - 


-2.37 


2.95 - 


- 2.29 ■ 


- .46 


.00 


13.62 


48 


49 


-2.03 


4.91 - 


-1.88 


1.65 - 


- .92 


- .41 - 


-1.02 - 


- .24 - 


-19.43 - 


- .84 


.18 


21.75 


49 


50 


-1.18 


.55 - 


-3.76 


.50 


6.50 


3.04 - 


-3.34 - 


-1.31 - 


- 6.55 


.52 


.10 


5.35 


50 


51 


.01 - 


-1.41 


.77 - 


- .73 


2.95 


- .24 - 


-5.26 


.00 


14.95 


* 


- .57 - 


- 4.90 


51 


52 


.88 - 


-2.05 - 


-1.26 - 


- .04 


.84 


-1.29 


.39 


.31 


5.47 


.36 


1.16 - 


- 2.74 


52 


53 


- .12 


3.42 


4.27 


.27 


1.44 


-2.99 


.31 


9.63 - 


-18.02 - 


- .60 - 


- .28 


2.66 


53 


54 


-2.20 


.09 


1.21 


.04 - 


- 1.83 


-4.66 


2.26 


3.25 


3.49 - 


- .24 


.72 


2.29 


54 


65 


* 


* 


* 


* 


* 


* 


* 


* 


* 


* 


* 


* 


55 


56 


.46 


1.62 


2.17 


.12 


5.83 


-2.50 - 


-4.66 


3.97 - 


-12.05 - 


- .83 - 


- .31 


10.45 


56 


57 


1.30 - 


-1.15 


.54 - 


- .48 


4.94 


.23 


2.84 


.87 - 


- 2.80 - 


- .52 - 


- .57 - 


- 5.01 


57 


58 


-1.84 - 


-4.03 


4.16 - 


- .21 


1.15 


5.08 - 


-1.15 - 


-3.46 


6.90 


1.89 - 


- .58 - 


- 4.50 


58 


59 


4.08 - 


-1.04 - 


- .46 - 


- .19 - 


- 1.35 


-3.57 - 


- .37 - 


-3.49 


7.87 - 


-1.06 - 


- .44 


3.81 


59 


60 


.76 


1.73 


3.87 - 


- .48 - 


- 2.28 


2.11 


* 


-3.49 


12.20 


.57 - 


- .60 - 


- 5.55 


60 


61 


-1.16 


2.13 - 


- .49 


.58 - 


- 2.23 


-1.07 


1.04 


2.96 


6.12 


.77 


1.39 - 


- 6.33 


61 


62 


- .25 


4.03 


5.74 


1.62 


4.50 


-4.29 


.37 


1.52 - 


-14.40 - 


- .98 


1.42 


4.35 


62 


63 


-1.32 


.08 - 


-1.63 


.39 


2.73 


1.90 - 


- .52 


.01 - 


-11.63 - 


- .90 - 


- .52 


9.77 


63 


64 


.42 


.74 - 


- .32 - 


- .28 - 


- 2.66 


4.41 


1.62 


4.72 


3.01 


1.32 


.59 - 


-10.17 


64 


65 


2.37 - 


-1.25 


3.41 - 


- .54 - 


- 2.96 


-2.94 - 


- .64 - 


- .50 


6.97 - 


- .59 - 


- .30 - 


- 5.02 


65 


66 


1.80 - 


-2.64 


5.69 


.29 


.72 


4.74 - 


- .81 - 


-2.11 


1.27 


1.12 


.17 - 


- 6.15 


66 


67 


.78 


.37 - 


-4.72 


1.16 


.52 


-2.10 


.51 


1.55 - 


- 5.50 


.30 - 


- .56 


12.92 


67 


68 


1.34 - 


-3.19 


2.50 - 


- .27 


5.07 


-1.95 


1.13 - 


-1.42 


3.64 


* 


.27 - 


- 1.70 


68 


69 


2.94 - 


- .16 - 


-3.15 


.89 - 


- 2.56 


3.31 - 


-2.39 - 


-2.06 


.97 - 


- .34 


2.20 


.02 


69 


70 


-1.91 - 


-2.20 


6.75 - 


-1.28 - 


- 2.88 


-3.12 - 


-1.71 - 


-1.40 


10.52 


.36 


1.69 - 


- 1.38 


70 


71 


-2.62 - 


-1.93 


.30 


2.11 


* 


-1.89 - 


- .24 


2.37 


5.96 


* 


.33 


3.40 


71 


72 


-1.63 - 


-1.48 - 


-1.01 


.87 - 


- 3.01 


5.46 


.10 - 


- .10 


6.15 


.70 


1.23 - 


-4.34 


72 


73 


7.58 


3.87 - 


- .45 


.40 


5.62 


-2.81 


1.39 - 


-1.17 - 


-10.00 - 


- .65 - 


- .55 


.15 


73 


74 


6.47 


.76 


.70 - 


-1.16 - 


- 2.73 


1.27 


* 


1.13 


1.31 - 


- .09 - 


- .04 


2.68 


74 


75 


- .93 


-.54 - 


- 1 . 20 - 


- .87 - 


- 2.01 


2.17 - 


-5.40 - 


-2.91 - 


-13.85 - 


- .25 - 


- .28 


24.65 


75 


76 


- .68 - 


-1.81 - 


- .86 - 


-1.00 


* 


2.17 - 


-5.04 - 


-1.17 


18.57 


.01 - 


- .54 - 


- 1.25 


76 


77 


3.29 - 


- .28 - 


- .45 


.43 


10.36 


5.20 - 


-2.63 - 


-2.76 - 


- 9.80 


* 


- .21 


1.28 


77 


78 


.95 


.00 


3.34 - 


- .49 


3.08 

*No da 


4.66 

ta given 
82 


.09 

in Tab! 


1.12 - 

le 14. 


-4.70 


.35 - 


- .11 - 


- 5.01 


78 



Some Fiscal Aspects of Public Education 83 

Measurement of Variability — Coefficient of Variability. — 
Were the question asked, which one of the items of expense 
varied most, no satisfactory deduction could be made based 
upon the different measures of variability just discussed. Does 
the expense for general administrative purposes vary more than 
the expense for police service ? that for schools more than that 
for libraries ? that for health more than that for fire protection ? 
It could not be concluded, for instance, though the expense for 
general administration varies in the group of cities under con- 
sideration from 5.09 % to 15.66 % — a difference of 10.57 % — 
and while the expense for police service varies from 4.13 % to 
16.73 % — 3, difference of 12.65 % — that the degree of difference 
between the two variabilities is that represented by the difference 
between 12.65 % ^^^ io-57 %. or by the ratio existing between 
these two quantities. Neither would the declaration be sound 
that the difference in variability in the expense for schools and 
that for libraries is the difference in their gross variability or 
the ratio that the quantity of one variability bears to the other. 

Table No. 18 

Table of medians, average deviations, standard deviations, and coefficients of 
variability. Average percentile payments for general and municipal 
service expenses. Fiscal years igo2 and IQ03. Cities between 2^,000 
and 50,000 population 

Median. 

General Administration 8 . 08 

Police Department 8.16 

Fire Department 9 . 98 

Health Department 1 . 40 

Charities and Corrections . . 3 . 02 

Public Highways 8.19 

Street Lighting 6. 43 

Public Sanitation 3 . 67 

Schools 32.30 

Libraries 1.14 

Public Recreation .61 

Interest on Debt 12. 50 

Without entering upon the discussion of the rationale of 
the mathematical procedure involved, it may be said that the 
so-called coefficient of variability ^ does give an adequate and 
comparable figure which may serve as an index of the degree of 

1 See Thomdike, E. L., Mental and Social Measurements, pp. 98-102, 
especially p. 102. 



Standard 


Average 


Coefficient of 


Deviation. 


Deviation. 


Variability. 


2.06 


1.54 


.54 


2.38 


1.74 


.609 


3.31 


2.58 


.817 


.997 


.747 


.633 


4.04 


2.98 


1.71 


2.99 


2.52 


.908 


2.35 


1.84 


.725 


2.43 


1.78 


.927 


8.34 


6.67 


1.175 


.727 


.56 


.524 


.92 


.642 


,814 


7.79 


5.75 


1.62 



84 Some Fiscal Aspects of Public Education 

variability to which the different items of expense are subject. 
Developed according to an empirical formula/ these coefficients 
of variability are given in the fourth column of Table 18. From 
these coefficients it is justifiable to say that the expense for 
libraries and that for general administration seems to be least 
subject to the influence of those conditions likely to produce 
variability, while the expense for charities and corrections, and 
interest on debt, and schools, possess, in the order named, the 
largest degree of variability. 

Causes of Variability. — The probable causes of the variability 
of expense discussed at length in Section VII. seem to admit of 
application in the present instance. Especially significant 
appears to be the negative influence of population alone. Of 
the remaining possible causes previously posited, the only one 
demanding special mention here is that of the mode of classi- 
fication of public accounts and of systems of accounting. It is 
believed that the efforts of the Bureau of the Census to present 
the data of municipal finance in a manner at once in accord 
with the standards of economists and of public and private 
finance, and admitting of some degree of comparison, have re- 
sulted more successfully than any other previous efforts in 
this direction. The care and thoroughness employed by the 
officials of the Census in the preparation of adequate schedules 
and in the collation of the data would seem to indicate that 
the confusion arising from the varying systems of accounting 
and from the differing modes of classifications of public accounts 
had been reduced to a point which gives the data special value 
for such group studies as this. 

Relationship of Variabilities ; Coefficient of Correlation.^ — 
Developed in the same manner as in Section VIII, the following 
coefficients of correlation given in Table 19 have been arrived 
at upon the basis of the average payments for municipal ex- 
penses for 1902 and 1903. 

There seems to be no need of analyzing the implication of 
these correlations. What was said in Section VIII regarding 
the meaning of these relationships finds additional proof in the 

r Median 

2 See pp. 56 ff. for discussion of significance and mode of derivation of 
the coefficient of correlation. 



Some Fiscal Aspects of Public Education 85 

character of the present coefficients. Each series presents in 
general the same distinguishing marks (compare Tables 10 and 
19). Noteworthy is the identity of the positive correlation of 
the expense for schools with the expense for fire department, that 
for libraries and museums and that for street lighting. 

Table No. 19 

Table of Pearson coefficients of correlation. Average percentile payments 

for general and municipal service expenses. Fiscal years igo2 and 

jgoj, all cities between 2^,000 and §0,000 population 

Schools with — 

General Administration — . 094 

Police Department — . 367 

Fire Department + . 088 

Health Department — . 187 

Charities and Corrections — . 371 

Public Highways - . 000428 

Street Lighting + . 246 

Public Sanitation — . 246 

Libraries and Museums + . 30 

Public Recreation — . 054 

Interest on Debt — . 541 

XII. Relationships of the Different Standards of Ex- 
penditures FOR Education 

Classification of Cities on the Basis of Percentile School Ex- 
penditures. — The previous demonstrations regarding variability 
and relationships of municipal expenditures have provided us, 
it is thought, with a new instrumentality with which to gain an 
insight into the significant meanings of these expenditures. 
We are enabled to classify cities into groups according to their 
differing fiscal characteristics. Thus, it is possible to arrange 
all of the cities, whose expenditures have been considered, into 
groups according to whether they spend a large or small propor- 
tion of their total municipal expenditures for any particular 
item. Such groupings on the basis of percentile educational 
expenditures as have already been represented ^ give additional 
meanings to our coefficients of correlation and lend further 
significance to the phenomenon of variability. 

Tables 20(a), 20(6), and 21 present certain other fiscal char- 
acteristics of groups of cities, the members of each group being 
selected, in tens, from the extremes of the variability range of 
percentile school expenditures. Without additional comment, 

' See Fig. 11, and explanation, p. 60. 



86 Some Fiscal Aspects of Public Education 

it may be noted that the totals (averages and medians) of the 
various items of expenditure tend to confirm the general rela- 
tionships pointed out by the Pearson coefficients of correlation. 
Other groupings on this same basis could be made so as to in- 
clude all of the cities. A confirmation of the general tendencies 
indicated by the coefficient figures might be looked for, although, 
as groups were formed of cities lying close to the central ten- 
dencies of the expenditures, the previously marked differences 
in the group characteristics would tend to disappear. 

Table No. 20 (a) 

Table showing general group relationships. Selection of cities based on per- 
centile expenditures for schools, and made from all cities in United 
States having a population of 30,000 and over. Fiscal year igoi 

Highest ten cities in percentile school expenditures: 





i 


"o 


•s 

CO 


■1 


^ "u bo 

OJ w C 

< 


Q 

c 



c 

CD 
g 

u 
nl 

a 

<U 

Q 


nl rt 
ai-i 

4) . 

|§ 

•30 

a, 


111 


46.8 


8.26 


7.05 


12.80 


4.57 


8.18 


87 


44.16 


7.20 


3.21 


5.69 


10.86 


9.27 


114 


38.80 


2.79 


9.02 


5.08 


7.30 


7.65 


81 


42.49 


5.40 


7.48 


14.50 


8.21 


10.90 


38 


41.40 


6.14 


9.81 


7.43 


7.50 


8.13 


56 


40.90 


8.74 


8.17 


3.26 


10.50 


9.99 


113 


39.74 


8.46 


4.95 


13.52 


8.04 


5.58 


75 


38.80 


10.80 


12.22 


6.56 


9.66 


9.71 


100 


38.41 


4.99 


6.43 


2.79 


14.44 


15.54 


119 


37.69 


11.32 


7.77 


9.70 


6.85 


10.18 


Median, 


41.15 


7.73 


7.62 


6.12 


8.12 


9.85 


Average, 


41.42 


7.41 


7.61 


8.13 


8.79 


9.51 


Lowest ten cities in 


percentile 


school ex 


penditures : 






37 


15.40 


5.40 


14.43 


17.60 


10.00 


11.10 


43 


14.32 


6.48 


8.74 


12.31 


10.11 


12.15 


17 


13.90 


4.48 


6.76 


27.61 


6.70 


11.71 


5 


13.07 


3.60 


11.65 


15.49 


5.87 


13.17 


99 


12.30 


4.18 


7.36 


28.91 


9.28 


14.34 


68 


12.76 


4.49 


6.64 


25.66 


7.94 


14.78 


12 


11.12 


5.03 


3.69 


18.60 


6.20 


6.24 


133 


10.26 


5.54 


8.80 


30.85 


7.84 


11.45 


46 


9.83 


2.71 


8.02 


29.78 


7.34 


8.60 


80 


6.96 


1.96 


11.80 


29.45 


5.52 


7.29 


Median, 


12.53 


4.49 


7.06 


28.26 


7.59 


11.58 


Average, 


11.99 


4.39 


8.49 


23.63 


7.68 


11.08 



* For names of cities see Table 2, pp. 22-25. 



Some Fiscal Aspects of Public Education 87 



Table No. 20 (fe) 

Table showing general group relationships. Selection of cities based on 

percentile expenditures for schools, and made from all cities in United 

States having a population of 30,000 and over. Fiscal year igoi 

Second highest ten cities in percentile school expenditures : 





•s 

1 




•s 

to 


i 


lO-U 

p-a 
WS . 

0) w C 

<: 


1 

P 

C! 


I 
<u 


4J 
C 

u 
ni 

a 

<u 

Q 


a " 

rt'n! 
Oh 


118 


36.90 


8.92 


6.01 


12.80 


6.22 


9.90 


2 


36.85 


3.62 


4.82 


6.80 


7.40 


17.66 


59 


36.70 


6.65 


5.27 


6.88 


10.90 


7.43 


129 


36.06 


7.21 


10.83 


8.33 


9.94 


6.25 


25 


35.93 


4.86 


9.07 


7.09 


8.22 


9.08 


90 


35.66 


11.02 


8.33 


9.90 


6.13 


6.43 


93 


35.30 


10.20 


7.64 


4.30 


5.98 


6.94 


77 


35.20 


7.54 


9.03 


12.80 


4.47 


6.83 


84 


34.93 


5.88 


8.25 


7.93 


8.49 


11.45 


132 


34.70 


4.47 


11.03 


6.66 


7.59 


13.24 


Median, 


35.79 


6.93 


8.29 


7.50 


7.50 


8.25 


Average, 


35.82 


7.04 


8.03 


8.35 


7.53 


9.52 


Second lowest ten cities in percentile school expenditures: 




85 


18.24 


3.17 


9.02 


22.32 


9.28 


7.79 


10 


18.12 


5.48 


6.19 


27.94 


7.59 


11.07 


94 


17.91 


4.58 


2.67 


18.99 


10.11 


12.07 


30 


17.87 


4.83 


7.88 


12.88 


7.66 


6.59 


135 


17.85 


2.41 


9.59 


18.30 


13.26 


12.31 


34 


17.73 


2.10 


7.69 


8.02 


6.79 


7.79 


4 


17.51 . 


6.72 


7.72 


8.93 


8.82 


13.17 


3 


17.37 


6.46 


5.45 


7.48 


5.76 


22.36 


24 


16.98 


7.72 


5.92 


16.14 


7.43 


6.60 


98 


16.48 


6.59 


12.27 


13.35 


8.60 


15.26 


Median, 


17.79 


5.15 


7.71 


14.74 


8.13 


11.57 


Average, 


17.61 


5.01 


7.44 


15.43 


8.53 


11.50 




> For 


names of cities see Table 2, pp. 


22-25. 





Some Fiscal Aspects of Public Education 



Table No. 21 

Table showing general group relationships. Selection of cities based on 
percentile payments for schools, and made from cities in United States 
having a population of 30,000 to 50,000. Average for fiscal years 
igo2 and iQOj 

Highest ten cities in percentile school expenditures: 



Si^ 






1 


"^1 


V 


Q 




0) K 
_JJ 









(U 2 

•ce 

2S 










C *" 


?6 


2 


a 5 


S^ 


3 

3 


h 


2 

3 


J2 m 


2 

3 


S 

Q 


^ 


w 





cu 


E 


ffi 





fe 


w 


CL. 


J 


pu 




76 


50.87 


7.40 


6.35 


9.12 


.40 




10.36 


.39 


2.60 


1.15 


.07 


11.25 


51 


47.25 


8.09 


6.75 


10.75 


.77 


5.97 


7.95 


1.17 


3.67 




.04 


7.60 


24 


47.05 


6.10 


8.85 


5.89 


1.53 


4.71 


11.85 


6.44 


.01 




.55 


6.87 


60 


44.50 


8.84 


9.89 


13 85 


.92 


.74 


10.30 




.18 


1.71 


.01 


6.95 


28 


42.88 


7.09 


6.00 


9.61 


2.10 


.10 


8.19 


7.45 


3.39 




.08 


12.60 


70 


42.82 


6.17 


5.96 


16.73 


.12 


.14 


5.07 


4.72 


2.27 


1.50 


2.30 


11.12 


26 


41.76 


7.52 


6.76 


11.52 


2.23 


.56 


9.86 


3.72 


1.60 


1.22 


.61 


12.36 


H 


40.80 


8.08 


4.69 


8.71 


.82 


.10 


3.26 


4.06 


2.81 


1.46 


.02 


24.77 


47 


40.70 


5.32 


7.00 


12.07 


.67 


.73 


6.88 


9.10 


5.85 


3.43 


.26 


7.68 


69 


40.17 


12.16 


7.12 


9.52 


1.21 


1.67 


4.62 


6.06 


.18 


.08 


.17 


16.31 


Median, 


42.85 


7.46 


6.76 


10.18 


.87 


.73 


8.07 


4.72 


2.44 


1.46 


.13 


11.19 


Average, 


43.88 


7.68 


6.94 


10.78 


1.08 


1.63 


783 


4.80 


2.26 


1.51 


.41 


11.75 


Lowest ten cities in 


percentile school expenditures : 












1 


21.70 


11.54 


11.87 


9.22 


1.40 


4.28 


4.83 


7.85 


10.65 


.63 


.24 


14.28 


40 


21.58 


7.67 


7.73 


5.14 


.87 


3.74 


10.74 


5.12 


4.55 


1.55 


.65 


20.69 


63 


20.57 


6.76 


8.24 


8.35 


1.79 


5.75 


10.09 


5.91 


3.68 


.24 


.09 


22.27 


56 


20.25 


8.54 


9.78 


12.15 


1.52 


8.85 


5.69 


1.77 


7.64 


.31 


.30 


22.95 


46 


19.75 


8.10 


8.07 


12.38 


4.33 


3.59 


6.39 


8.37 


3.52 






25.54 


75 


18.45 


7.15 


7.62 


8.78 


.53 


1.01 


10.36 


1.03 


.76 


.89 


.33 


37.15 


62 


17.90 


7.83 


12.19 


15.72 


3.02 


7.52 


3.90 


6.70 


5.19 


.16 


2.03 


16.85 


53 


16.76 


7.96 


11.58 


14.25 


1.67 


4.46 


5.20 


6.74 


13.30 


.54 


.33 


15.16 


14 


13.72 


7.52 


12.32 


13.45 


1.97 


1.94 


10.96 


3.60 


4.14 


.04 


.63 


28.67 


49 


12.87 


6.05 


13.07 


8.10 


3.05 


2.10 


7.78 


5.41 


3.43 


.30 


.79 


34.26 


Median, 


19.10 


7.75 


10.68 


10.69 


1.73 


4.01 


7.09 


5.66 


4.35 


.31 


.33 


22.61 


Average. 


18.36 


7.91 


10.25 


10.75 


2.02 


4.32 


7.59 


5.25 


5.69 


.52 


.60 


23.77 



• For names of cities see Table 14, pp. 72-73. 



Some Fiscal Aspects of Public Education 89 

Classification of Cities on the Basis of Per Capita School 
Expenditure. — In like manner Table 22 illustrates the construc- 
tion of groupings from the per capita expenditures which, 
even more than the percentile groupings, give objective evidence 
of the conditions predicated by the Pearson coefficients : 

Table No. 22 

Table showing general group relationships. Selection of cities based on 

per capita expenditures for schools, and made from all cities in United 

States having a population of 30,000 and over. Fiscal year igoi 

Highest ten cities in per capita school expenditures : 









•^ 








S m 


s 


is 


G 


U) 




1 
a 


•1 

1 





"0 


ft 3 


p 


+9 















6 





=3" 






132 


$5.56 


$2.12 


$1.22 


$ .72 


60 


5.53 


1.04 


1.50 


1.03 


1 


5.51 


3.21 


1.32 


.76 


122 


5.43 


1.94 


1.55 


1.59 


5 


5.31 


3.13 


2.24 


1.34 


25 


4.85 


1.23 


1.11 


.66 


41 


4.67 


1.37 


.97 


.77 


61 


4.64 


1.04 


1.02 


.92 


49 


4.62 


1.56 


1.42 


.72 


120 


4.62 


.98 


.99 


.87 


Median, 


$5.08 


$1.46 


$1.27 


$ .82 


Average, 


5.42 


1.76 


1.41 


.84 


Lowest ten cities in per 


capita school ex 


penditures : 




125 


$1.49 


$ .65 


$ .66 


$ .71 


135 


1.47 


1.02 


1.10 


.20 


126 


1.46 


.56 


.53 


.62 


46 


1.35 


1.18 


1.01 


.37 


37 


1.31 


.95 


.93 


.46 


99 


1.24 


1.45 


.93 


.42 


68 


1.19 


1.38 


.74 


.42 


98 


1.18 


1.02 


.62 


.47 


133 


1.12 


1.26 


.86 


.61 


80 


1.07 


1.12 


.84 


.30 


Median, 


$1.27 


$1.07 


$ .85 


$ .44 


Average, 


1.29 


1.08 


.85 


.44 



Fiscal Standards for Education. — After all, it may be asked, 
what is the real significance of these relationships and groupings ? 
Unless they are indicative of certain positive or negative quali- 
ties of municipal activity, why develop them ? In the general 
» For names of cities see Table 2, pp. 22-25. 



90 Some Fiscal Aspects of Public Education 

attempt to make a reply to this, we are led to discern if possible 
the relationships which may exist between the different expen- 
diture standards in current usage. In this the effort will be 
confined to the different standards of educational expenditures, 
inasmuch as these are the factors which are of most concern in 
the present instance. 

Classification of Cities on Basis of Cost per Pupil. — The or- 
dinarily accepted standard for effort in the support of public 
education is the amount expended according to the number of 
pupils educated; in general, the annual cost per pupil educated, 
based on average daily attendance. This seems to be, of 
course, the sound basis. If expenditures are in any way re- 
lated to efficiency and excellence and opportunity, then the 
actual amount of money devoted to each pupil attending 
school is the most essential fiscal fact. A city does not educate 
in its public schools all of the population, hence a rating on the 
basis of expenditure per capita of population would not be 
entirely sound, except in so far as the number of children in 
cities bore a constant relation to the total population. Even 
the number of children in a community is scarcely an index of 
the number of pupils in the public schools. Many within the age 
limit do not attend school for one reason or another. Private 
and parochial schools tend to reduce the number of pupils 
actually in the public schools. 

Valuation of Different Standards. — In spite of this apparent 
proof of the validity of the cost per pupil basis, it is here thought 
that each of the several classifications, percentile, per capita and 
per pupil, has a special value in estimating potential mimicipal 
effort and actual educational opportunity afforded in any city. 
The difficulty has been in actual administrative practice, not in 
the lack of recognition of these different standards, but in the 
assignment of an adequate value to each. 

Relationship of Different Standards. — Before suggesting any 
method by which this possible value may be attached to each 
of these standards, it is necessary to determine in some way 
just what relations these different standards bear to one another. 
Are they totally independent, or does the knowledge of one give 
any information concerning the others? To present the prob- 
lem in a more definite manner, Table 23 has been constructed. 
The first three columns of the table (omitting the column giving 



Some Fiscal Aspects of Public Education 91 

the index numbers of the cities) give the rankings of the 135 
cities above 30,000 population, for the fiscal year 1900 according 
to the three standards which have been indicated. 

The rankings of the first column were obtained by arrang- 
ing the cities according to their percentile expenditures for 
education, giving to the city that spent the highest percentage, 
of its total expenditures, for education rank i, to the city that 
spent the second highest percentage rank 2, etc. In a similar 
manner, the cities in column two were ranked according to 
their per capita expenditures. The figures for column three 
were obtained in an arbitrary yet uniform manner, from the 
data published in the report of the United States Commissioner 
of Education for 1899-1900,1 by dividing the combined ex- 
penditures for teaching and supervision, and current and inci- 
dental expenses, by the average daily attendance. As this data 
is gathered by the Commissioner of Education directly from 
the school superintendents, it is, without doubt, fairly reliable. 

From a casual inspection of these columns one might easily 
infer the existence of a positive correlation between columns 
two and three. That such a mutual relationship is present is 
indicated by Figure 29. It is of such a direct and conclusive 
nature that no attempt was made to measure its exact amount 
by the Pearson coefficient. 

The relations between columns one and three and one and 
two are of a neutral or slightly negative character. This is 
demonstrated graphically in Figures 30 and 31, which represent 
the relations as they exist between the cities of from 30,000 to 
50,000 population. 

Value of Percentile Standard. — In view of these negative or 
neutral relationships between the rankings according to the 
percentile standard and those according to the other two, what 
estimate may be put upon this standard? It serves indeed, as 
we have already seen, as a means of determining with consider- 
able accuracy the exact fiscal position of public education in 
its relation to other municipal activities. These relationships 
enable us to state specifically certain characteristics of fiscal 

» Vol. II, Table 7, pp. 1798-1809, Statistics of Population and School 
Enrollment and Attendance in Cities over 8,000 Population, 1 899-1900; 
Table 10, pp. 1832-1841, Statistics of Expenditures of Public Schools of 
Cities over 8,000 Inhabitants in i8gg-igoo. 



92 Some Fiscal Aspects of Public Education 

Table No. 23 

Rank of cities in the United States above 30,000 population in accordance 
with expenditures for education 

- ^ " oi (1 B.05 -a 5 Sow 5o.c 

o 3e2 •a'22 u'^ V-. "O "a-So o.a;-t;aj 

o «auo. ^-c ^ S S^ S W.S « a 

J ^^^ J J 282 15 111 3 



2 30 25 20 235 10 



29 73 



? 113 87 83 902 103 104 36 

4 115 90 80 900 101 106 !? 

109 2 

110 40 



f 119 4 7 285 16 109 
6 120 104 66 882 97 



I oi li K ^^2 61 65 66 

8 96 56 64 680 72 92 26 

9 88 24 6 278 14 Sfi 91 
}? 110 57 87 826 It ill \\ 

11 125 88 24 634 63 112 12 

12 130 125 50 885 99 1? 

13 64 71 51 596 60 63 69 

14 86 93 90 901 102 84 65 
If 79 19 25 340 22 77 on 

16 102 33 28 443 32 

17 127 105 108 1109 119 



98 13 

113 10 

51 

49 



100 8 

22 96 

48 71 
93 46 

108 6 

9 63 

49 75 
102 41 



18 105 96 104 1018 114 

II 53 32 72 562 56 52 

20 106 20 10 322 20 

21 23 54 33 373 28 

22 49 64 32 450 34 

23 97 82 89 885 100 

24 117 34 38 526 48 
26 9 7 11 94 2 
26 50 68 101 809 90 

28 74 58 40 522 46 73 50 

29 82 9 22 301 19 It 7 

30 78 22 61 527 49 76 25 

47 57 

55 79 

99 39 

39 132 

53 48 

24 56 

111 
1 126 



31 48 39 53 478 39 

32 56 72 88 768 84 

33 104 75 75 808 89 

34 40 129 98 957 109 

35 54 26 29 331 21 

36 25 11 30 233 9 

37 118 127 114 1187 122 

38 1 55 41 372 27 

39 58 48 19 355 24 57 '^2 

40 75 52 56 586 58 74 II 
ti ?f of 18 273 13 82 5 
f2 71 84 34 564 57 70 68 
S 123 122 128 1252 1§6 ^ ?1 

44 41 61 82 675 70 40 78 

45 26 46 36 370 26 25 85 

» For names of cities, see Table i, pp. 18 ff. 



Some Fiscal Aspects of Public Education 93 

Table No. 23 {Continued) 

Rank of cities in the United States above 30,000 population in accordance 
with expenditures for education 



1 


gg 


1 

yg 


rs 1 

P.05 
0,00 

<L» tS 




<u 

> 

•a 


a; 

■d 

(U 


cii c> 


Total Expenditures. 
Maintenance and 
Operation. Per 
Capita Rank. 


46 


129 


123 


125 


1252 


127 




45 


47 


90 


114 


122 


1232 


125 




49 


48 


98 


78 


16 


510 


43 


94 


43 


49 


62 


17 


1 


180 


4 


61 


27 


50 


42 


101 


118 


977 


112 


41 


112 


51 


51 


108 


99 


921 


105 


50 


113 


52 


59 


103 


107 


962 


111 


58 


100 


53 


87 


115 


109 


1064 


115 


85 


103 


54 


69 


99 


102 


927 


106 


68 


86 


55 


101 


35 


44 


527 


55 


97 


14 


56 


8 


10 


13 


111 


3 


8 


70 


57 


85 


81 


71 


768 


85 


83 


85 


58 


93 


36 


43 


509 


42 


90 


22 


59 


3 


12 


65 


367 


25 


3 


88 


60 


47 


3 


23 


218 


8 


46 


11 


61 


52 


8 


49 


373 


29 


51 


18 


62 


100 


100 


45 


725 


78 


96 


59 


63 


63 


63 


39 


510 


44 


62 


60 


64 


29 


66 


58 


546 


54 


28 


106 


65 


99 


113 


35 


712 


76 


95 


76 


66 


61 


67 


60 


623 


62 


60 


64 


67 


32 


47 


54 


475 


38 


31 


82 


68 


126 


128 


132 


1296 


132 




81 


69 






No data 








70 


34 


13 


55 


382 


31 


33 


54 


71 


76 


111 


119 


1080 


118 




101 


72 


83 


18 


14 


290 


17 


81 


15 


73 


28 


86 


42 


524 


47 


27 


115 


74 


91 


110 


112 


1072 


117 


88 


90 


75 


4 


85 


96 


743 


80 


4 


124 


76 


43 


79 


124 


446 


107 


42 


92 


77 


22 


76 


85 


697 


74 


21 


116 


78 


112 


31 


31 


472 


37 


103 


9 


79 


67 


16 


5 


207 


7 


66 


23 


80 


132 


131 


120 


1257 


128 




29 


81 


6 


27 


21 


198 


6 


6 


108 


82 


44 


14 


12 


190 


5 


43 


42 


83 


38 


102 


97 


867 


96 


37 


114 


84 


15 


73 


91 


699 


75 


15 


119 


85 


107 


106 


116 


1112 


120 




62 


86 


95 


109 


47 


752 


81 




83 


87 


35 


60 


59 


545 


53 


34 


89 


88 


108 


119 


123 


1188 


123 




84 


89 


16 


40 


105 


687 


73 


16 


95 


90 


24 


121 


79 


806 


88 


23 


130 



' For names of cities, see Table i, pp. i8 ff. 



94 



Some Fiscal Aspects of Public Education 



Table No. 23 {Continued) 

Rank of cities in the United States above jo,ooo population in accordance 
with expenditures for education 







S ° 

Pi S . 


8 

.OS 

euoo 


J 

> 


•0 


^■5 

C 3 t/i 

rt a; 

£•- c 


Expenditures, 
.intenance and 
leration. Per 
pita Rank. 





2 


2a 






.Sf 
'Z 






3soc5 




91 


18 


65 


84 


651 


67 


18 


110 


92 


92 


49 


69 


676 


71 


89 


28 


93 


10 


41 


78 


533 


51 


10 


104 


94 


109 


116 


127 


1201 


124 




77 


95 


114 


59 


15 


480 


41 


105 


19 


96 


21 


107 


111 


917 


104 


20 


127 


97 


57 


92 


73 


755 


82 


56 


87 


98 






No data 








99 


124 


130 


129 


1283 


130 




107 


100 


20 


112 


115 


951 


108 




128 


101 


39 


80 


100 


818 


91 


38 


99 


102 






No 


data 








103 


128 


50 


46 


636 


65 


114 


4 


104 


81 


44 


37 


479 


40 


79 


32 


105 


89 


51 


9 


376 


30 


87 


35 


106 


13 


28 


48 


350 


23 


13 


91 


107 


37 


74 


92 


758 


83 


36 


98 


108 


46 


117 


103 


958 


110 


45 


123 


109 


27 


97 


62 


655 


69 


26 


121 


110 


94 


45 


27 


458 


36 


91 


24 


111 


2 


91 


93 


741 


79 


2 


129 


112 


73 


69 


106 


883 


98 


72 


61 


113 


11 


98 


110 


866 


95 


11 


125 


114 


5 


21 


74 


443 


33 


5 


102 


115 


33 


95 


94 


821 


92 


32 


117 


116 


36 


77 


95 


778 


86 


35 


105 


117 


55 


42 


81 


641 


66 


54 


53 


118 


19 


94 


67 


655 


68 


19 


122 


119 


12 


118 


121 


983 


113 


12 


131 


120 


77 


15 


8 


239 


11 


75 


16 


121 


14 


43 


86 


587 


59 


14 


97 


122 


116 


2 


2 


254 


12 


107 


1 


123 


45 


53 


77 


634 


64 


44 


67 


124 


72 


23 


17 


298 


18 


71 


30 


125 


103 


126 


131 


1143 


121 




118 


126 


60 


120 


117 


1065 


116 


59 


120 


127 


80 


37 


26 


451 


35 


78 


31 


128 


70 


29 


57 


512 


45 


69 


34 


129 


17 


62 


113 


785 


87 


17 


109 


130 


68 


30 


63 


541 


52 


67 


38 


131 


31 


38 


76 


556 


55 


30 


80 


132 


7 


1 


3 


32 


1 


7 


33 


133 


131 


132 


126 


1288 


131 




55 


134 


65 


S3 


68 


719 


77 


64 


74 


135 


121 


124 


130 


1264 


129 




93 



> For names of cities, see Table i, pp. 18 ff. 



Some Fiscal Aspects of Public Education 



95 



practices in cities. Alone, the percentile standard of expenditure 
tellsjus to just what extent it is necessary for the municipality 
to support education, or to what extent the municipality is 
willing to support education, or to what extent it is able to 



13B 



FIG. S0.> 




35 4ft 



PEE* PlJPIli 
65 65 76 85 



105 116 1S5 13$ 



support education. Necessity, willingness, and ability may 
represent different things entirely. The percentile expendi- 
ture may be comparatively low, yet the per capita and cost 
per pupil expenditures high (compare city 122 in the tables). 
In this case the possible number of pupils may be compara- 
tively low and the general resources of the community com- 
paratively high. In either case, it would be necessary to make 
use of the per capita or cost per pupil rankings and standards. 

Value of Per Capita Standard. — The closeness with which 
this standard approximates that of the cost per pupil in any 
> See p. 9 1 for explanation. 



96 Some Fiscal Aspects of Public Education 

city might be indicative, in general, of the extent to which the 
facilities for public education were utilized by all of the children 
of the community. Any great divergence would indicate some 
cause which led to an unbalancing of the normal proportion of 
children and adults in the population, or it might indicate a 
non-attendance of pupils upon the public schools. 

Value of Cost per Pupil Standard. — Without entering upon 
any detailed discussion as to the validity of the method by 

Table No. 24 

Table of frequencies. Expenditure per pupil for schools. Derived from data 

contained in report of the United States Commissioner of Education, 

1899-1900 





All cities above 


All cities between 


Cost per pupil. 


30,000 population. 


30,000 and 50,000 population. 


$11 


1 





12 








13 


1 


1 


14 


2 


2 


15 


4 


2 


16 


3 


1 


17 


3 


2 


18 


1 





19 


3 


3 


20 


6 


3 


21 


8 


3 


22 


12 


7 


23 


7 


2 


24 


16 


10 


25 


5 


2 


26 


12 


2 


27 


5 


3 


28 


7 


1 


29 


9 





30 


5 


; 2 


31 


5 


'] 1 


32 


6 


3 


33 


2 





34 


3 


2 


35 








36 


1 





37 


1 


1 


38 


2 


1 


39 


1 


1 


40 







41 







42 


1 






Total, 132 


55 



which this factor should be derived,, and assuming that, in 
general, a high cost per pupil is indicative of a high standard 
of opportunity for education, it may be asserted that, in rank- 
ing cities in accordance with their fiscal policy toward educa- 



56 



FIG 30^ 




59 
6:0 

40 

3>5 

us 

10 



PBB PUPIL 



a 10 10 SO 85 30 30 40 4A 60 5S 



FIG 31^ 




PKJ6 OAPCTIA. POPCrLATIOR 

S 10 10 20 26 30 8 



40 4S 60 S6 



I See page 91 for explanation. 
97 



98 Some Fiscal Aspects of Public Education 

tion, the greater weight should be given to this factor. In the 
present rankings a small number of discrepancies may have 
arisen by ranking some cities too high, owing to such causes, as, 
for instance, an extraordinarily high expenditure for secondary 
education, which would tend to raise the cost per pupil rank 
above that obtaining in reality by the average expenditure for 
all pupils. 

Rankings According to Weighted Values. — Columns four and 
five of Table 23 are suggested as a possible method by means 
of which communities could be given a financial rank for their 
educational expenditures, by assigning certain values to the 
three previously discussed standards. Column four was de- 
veloped by assigning a value of two to the rankings of column 
one, a value of three to those of column two, and a value of 
five to those of column three. The cities were then ranked in 
accordance with these weighted values, to the lowest value 
being given the first rank. The plan here followed is one that 
might be adapted on a more extended scale, including, for in- 
stance, such items as the percentage of the total amount ex- 
pended for education devoted to the salaries of teachers, the 
proportional amounts devoted to elementary and secondary 
education, and so forth. By reason of the generally low posi- 
tion of the southern cities, a ranking according to the weighted 
values is given in column six of Table 23, excluding the southern 
cities. 

In the last column of this table all of the cities are ranked 
in accordance with their total municipal expenditures on the 
per capita basis. The relation between the per capita expendi- 
tures for education and the per capita total expenditures, as 
determined by the Pearson formula, gave a result of -|- -56. 
This coefficient is to be interpreted as meaning that, as the 
general municipal expenditures increase, the expenditures for 
education do not increase at the same rate. In this respect 
this coefficient seems to indicate a similar tendency to that de- 
rived from the relation between the amount of school ex- 
penditures and the assessed valuation of property in cities. 1 
XIII. General Conclusions 

Aside from the detailed results of this study recorded in the 
preceding chapters, it seems pertinent to gather together here 

> See page 66. 



Some Fiscal Aspects of Public Education 99 

some of the larger and wider aspects of the method used and of 
the results obtained. 

The validity of the application of such a statistical method as 
that employed cannot, I believe, be questioned. The study of 
the financial statistics of education, through the medium of 
large groups of cities needs no further justification, if such statis- 
tics are to be raised above the plane of mere one to one com- 
parison of cities and are to be utilized for general scientific 
conclusions. 

The study of the expenditures for public education with 
reference to the expenditures for other municipal activities 
should be extended until the relationships between all of these 
different expenditures can be defined and their meaning fully 
understood. As cities increase in size, and the extent, number, 
and importance of municipal fimctions increase, thus bringing 
a greater burden to the sources of the municipal income, there 
will develop a greater necessity for a knowledge and understand- 
ing of these relations, both for a fuller recognition of the essential 
conditions of municipal life and for a better comprehension of 
the legitimate claims of public education for a more generous 
support. 

The finances of public education in a municipality cannot be 
studied apart from the finances of other activities any more than 
the public school as an institution can be studied in isolation 
from its social environment. The wider consideration of this 
important matter will lead to two much-desired results. 

First, there would be a tendency toward the breaking down 
of that social and administrative isolation of the public schools 
which now obtains in so many communities. The idea of the 
unity of the mimicipal life and institutions brought forward in 
the introduction of this study will be furthered only when the 
mutual dependence of the social activities within that life is 
realized. Without doubt there is a grave danger in not having 
the public schools of all cities safeguarded against the attacks of 
vicious politics and self-seeking prejudices. But politics and 
prejudices of this sort exist in a greater or less degree in every 
community. Merely to keep the public schools free from their 
influence is not to protect the remaining elements of the muni- 
cipal life. Each of these elements possesses a potential power 
for education. Each should be entitled only to such proportion 



loo Some Fiscal Aspects of Public Education 

of the public revenue as is demonstrated by its efficiency and 
importance within the municipal economy. 

Second, there would result a broader conception of the eco- 
nomic importance of education, which would -serve to supple- 
ment a rational treatment of those fundamental and far-reaching 
problems of financial support at present confronting the educa- 
tional activities in most American cities. The fiscal relation- 
ships that have been pointed out are of the variety demanded for 
a correct discrimination of the rightful quantity of- public sup- 
port to which each of the municipal activities is economically 
entitled. 

BIBLIOGRAPHY 

1. Bulletin, United States Department of Labor, No. 24, September, 

1899, Statistics of Cities. Washington, 1899. 

2. Bulletin, United States Department of Labor, No. 30, September, 

1900. Statistics of Cities. Washington, 1900. 

3. Bulletin, United States Department of Labor, No. 36, September, 

1901, Statistics of Cities. Washington, 1901. 

4. Bulletin, United States Department of Labor, No. 42, September, 

1902. Statistics of Cities. Washington, 1902. 

5. An Introduction to the Theory of Mental and Social Measurements. 

Edward L. Thomdike. New York, 1904. 

6. Educational Psychology. Edward L. Thomdike. New York, 1903. 

7. Statistics and Sociology. Richmond Mayo-Smith. New York, 1896. 

8. Introduction to Economics. Henry Rogers Seager. New York, 1904. 

9. The Growth of Cities in the Nineteenth Century. Adna Ferrin Weber. 

Studies in History, Economics, and Public Law, Columbia Uni- 
versity. New York, 1899. 

School Administration in Municipal Government. Frank Rollins. 
New York, 1902. 

The Centralization of Administration in New York State. John A. 
Fairlie. New York, 1898. 

Ptiblic Administration in Massachusetts: The Relation of Central to 
Local Activity. Robert Harvey Whitten. New York, 1898. 

13. Municipal Problems. Frank J. Goodnow. New York, 1897. 

14. City Government in the United States. Frank J. Goodnow. New 

York, 1904. 

15. Municipal Administration. John A. Fairlie. New York, 1901. 

16. The American City: A Problem in Democracy. Delos F. Wilcox. 

New York, 1904. 

17. American Municipal Progress. Charles Zueblin. New York, 1902. 
City Government in the United States. Alfred R. Conkling. New 

York, 1895. 



Some Fiscal Aspects of Public Education loi 

19. More Money for the Public Schools. Charles W. Eliot, New York, 

1903- 

20. Our Schools, Their Administration and Supervision. William Esta- 

brook Chancellor. Boston, 1904. 

21. Proceedings of the Cohtmbus Conference for Good City Government attd 

Fifth Annual Meeting of the National Mtinicipal League, No- 
vember 16-18, 1899. Clinton Rogers Woodruff, Editor. Phila- 
delphia, 1899. 

22. Proceedings of the Milwaukee Conference for Good City Government 

and Sixth Annual Meeting of the National Municipal League. 
September 19-21, 1900. Clinton Rogers Woodruff, Editor, 
Philadelphia, 1900. 

23. Proceedings of the Rochester Conference for Good City Government aiid 

Seventh Annual Meeting of the National Municipal League, 
May 8-10, 1 90 1. Clinton Rogers Woodruff, Editor. Phila- 
delphia, 1 90 1. 

24. Proceedings of the Chicago Conference for Good City Government and 

the Tenth Annual Meeting of the National Municipal League, 
April 27-29, 1904. Clinton Rogers Woodruff, Editor. Phila- 
delphia, 1904. 

25. Reports of an Investigation Concerning the Cost of Maintaining the 

Public School System of the City of New York by the Department 
of Finance (Investigations Division). New York, 1904. 

26. Uniform Municipal Accounting; Minutes of a Conference held in the 

City of Washington, November ig and 20, igoj, under the Au- 
spices of the United States Bureau of the Census. Washington, 
Government Printing Office, 1904. 

27. Wealth, Debt and Taxation, Municipal Finance: Instructions to 

Clerks and Special Agents. Department of Commerce and 
Labor, Bureau of the Census, 1904. 

28. Salaries of Teachers. J. B. Clark. Columbia University Quarterly, 

I: III— 121. 

29. Statistics of Cities Having a Population of over 2^,000, 1902 and 

1903. Department of Commerce and Labor, Bureau of the 
Census, Washington, 1905. 

AFTERWORD 

It is fitting at the conclusion of this study for me to express 
my gratitude to those whose assistance has made its accomplish- 
ment possible. To Dean James E. Russell of the Teachers Col- 
lege, Columbia University, for suggesting the importance of such 
a study, and to Professor Edwin R. A. Seligman of the Faculty 
of Political Science of Columbia University for much helpful ad- 
vice during the progress of the investigation, am I under deep 
obligations. By Mr. Le Grand Powers, Chief Statistician of the 



I02 SoiJie piscal Aspects of Public Education 

Division of Wealth, Debt and Taxation, of the United States 
Census Bureau, for much valuable information regarding the 
collection of the original data utilized; by Professor S. T. Dut- 
ton of the Teachers College, Columbia University, for his interest 
in the study; and by Dr. F. A. Cleveland of New York City for 
many useful hints regarding the nature of municipal accounts, 
have I been placed imder a lasting debt. For the opportunity 
of making an extended observation of current municipal re- 
ports, I am indebted to the auditors and treasurers of a large 
number of cities, especially to these officers of New England and 
New York cities. In this connection, too. Dr. James H. Can- 
field, Librarian of Columbia University, has given me timely aid 
in the collection of municipal reports from many other cities. 
Much kindly assistance has been rendered me by Miss Elizabeth 
G. Baldwin and Miss Anna E. Scudder of the Bryson Library, 
Teachers College. Without the inestimable and painstaking 
assistance of Miss Jeanette F. Seibert, Assistant in Psychology 
in the Teachers College, in the lengthy and laborious work in- 
volved in the arithmetical and tabulating operations, the study 
would have been beyond the limits of my energy and patience. 
It is, however, to Professor Edward Lee Thorndike of the 
Teachers College, Columbia University, that I must acknowl- 
edge my greatest debt. His interest in the problems developed 
during the course of the investigation, and the constant, kindly 
criticism of the work, especially as regards the statistical method 
employed, have caused me to be keenly sensible of the gratitude 
I ov/e him. It is the inspiration derived from his scientific 
attitude toward all social and educational problems that has 
given my work whatever merit it may possess. 

PERSONAL STATEMENT 

The author of this study was born in Chicago in 1874. He 
received his elementary and secondary education in the public 
schools of North Platte, Nebraska; was graduated from the 
University of Nebraska with the degree of bachelor of science in 
1895; master of arts, 1897. He was a Fellow (Teaching) in 
Chemistry at the University of Nebraska, 1895-1897; instructor 
in science, High School, Leadville, Colorado, 1897-98; and 
superintendent of city schools, Leadville, Colorado, 1 898-1 903. 



Some Fiscal Aspects of Public Education 103 

He was a student at Columbia University, 1903-1905; and at 
University of Jena, summer semester, 1905; assistant in educa- 
tional administration, Teachers College, Columbia University, 
1903-1904; Fellow (Teaching) in Education, Teachers College, 
Coltimbia University, 1904-1905. 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



021 324 808 n 



